Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox

Please raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine‎

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.

---

This template is specific to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. For the sake of keeping discussions centralised, please raise any matters relating to this template at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

In location, Kolbasna is not a city but a village, thus "Transnistrian city of Kolbasna" should be changed to "Transnistrian village of Kolbasna" ZZARZY223 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Remove the "Supported by: Columbia" in the infobox under Ukraine. The Columbian military will send a team to train the Ukrainian military in demining techniques. This training will be given in a third-party country, so it is comparable to training provided by The Netherlands or Germany on various weapons systems.

I do not believe that this training rises to the level of military support. These demining teams will not support any active hostilities, compared to e.g. Belarus, which provided its territory as staging grounds for the Kyiv offensive and airfields for air combat missions.

If we do decide to keep the support, we should replace the Russian-language sources with an English-language source, such as this Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/world/colombia-train-ukrainian-military-landmine-removal-2022-05-23/ YD407OTZ (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Proposed edit was already done when I came across this request. Thanks for the heads up though YD407OTZ --N8_wilson 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are there no other listed commanders?

Only the presidents are listed. Why is there no mention of key military men in this war like Sergei Shoigu? WR 22:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the body of the article only supports the inclusion of those two. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The body of the article only supports the inclusion of the two. A better solution is to add a link to the list of commanders like the one written in the Vietnam War infobox. Parham wiki (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this is only an end-around the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox should be a reflection of the article - which it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

So why is there a link for the units involved in the battle (Order of battle)? Isn't this redundant? Also the link is given to Invasion Commanders (same as Order of battle article) NOT APOLLO 11! Parham wiki (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Parham, your edit to this infobox was reverted because you are a non-ECP user and may not make such edits in accordance with WP:GS/RUSUKR. You may not make further edits to the template. You were asked to discuss your proposal at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, not here. I also draw your attention to the first section on this talk page #Please raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Under "place", please change "in Belgorodsky District of Belgorod Oblast" to "in Belgorodsky District of Belgorod Oblast." Duckduckgoop (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk PRs

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 the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs be removed from the infobox? Neither one claims to exist anymore. WMSR (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Both still exist within Russia. They were annexed, but they did not cease to exist. Applodion (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk PRs ware Russian puppet states formally annexed by Russia. They should be removed from the infobox, otherwise we have to include every subject of Russian Federation --Perohanych (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Applodion @Perohanych @WMSR Here's my opinion on this:

The annexation of the DPR and LPR to the Russian Federation is internationally unrecognized, so in my opinion, we should not treat them as a subject of the Russian Federation, nor should we treat them as separate countries and use the flag icon in the infobox. So what I've done is I've changed the little parenthetical disclaimer in the infobox to say: "34,000 (separatist militias)" in order to reconcile the two situations. PilotSheng (talk) 22:40, 26 December 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.

Syria?

Isn’t it true that Syrian forces have been spotted in southern Ukraine supporting Russian forces? 96.44.20.65 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Separating the Southern/Kherson Counteroffensive from Southern Ukraine offensive. For some reason they keep getting merged, but like, Southern Ukraine offensive is Russia's offensive and the counteroffensive is well.. Ukraine's offensive to retake land. Its not even said that the counteroffensive has ended. Slimebor (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

As i said before, the article is NOT named "Southern Ukraine offensive", "its Southern Ukraine CAMPAIGN", the kherson counteroffensive is only a part of the southern campaign/theatre. SnoopyBird (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Navigation, Formatting, and Content Change Request

BEFORE

status = Ongoing (list of engagements · territorial control · timeline of events)

AFTER

timeline = Timeline of events.

This page includes a list of 3+ phases and sub-lists, on separate pages, by month with monthly and daily updates listed in descending order.

status = Ongoing (list of engagements · territorial control)

Commentary

Way wonky but none-the-less a timeline is NOT a (parenthetical) status

status may be perjorative and singular

timeline may be perjorative also, though intending to be chronological and truthy if not factual.

At this point, the only reason to visit this collection of pages pertains to developments and very recent history. The bulk of the pages and sub sub sub pages are static and informationally wonky.

Other sites have very structured lists / diaries primarily accessed by date-specific URLs, for example:

//domain.com/ukraine_war/2023-01-24

This URL is short and sweet and semi-infinitely extensible (until 9999-12-31), includability is high for the next war and its hundreds! of regional predecessors (over 1,000's of years).

List_of_wars_involving_Ukraine

The other domains do not pretend to be encyclopedic, thus the timeline suits their needs with little other background content. None the less, visitors forever want to know what's up Doc.

What's_Up,_Doc?_(1972_film)

Hey, Look! Ukraine bombed the crap out of a Russian arms depot on my brithday! Gooooo team!

Future-proof this timeline!

...and incidentally, enable back-filling of prior war timelines, yeah!

The personalization of the Phases timeline, in particular, is not fundamentally adding value (i.e.

Phase X "my opinion of what they be intending",

Phase Y "a different opinion at odds with reality",

Phase Z "a ghastly incorrect sub-title, due to a refactored underlying page totally out of synch with the title page editors and the janatorial staff - see Phases, below",

etc.).

From a maintenance perspective this is

- contentious (no phases, please) with lots of perpeptual debates / opinions

- unautomatable (vs "Timeline_ukraine_war_(2023)"),

- programmatically scrapably challenged.

So, why is this war en.wikipedia.org recorded soooo different from the dozens of regional wars with respect to timelines?

What You Must Implement, Now

Daily pages may be excessive, so go with a year in review / current overview with links to monthly update pages with per day listings. IMHO...

See also Sources and Suggestions

Talk:Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

Timeline titles with pervasive Russian inconsistencies

Russian trolls with a conspiracy to misdirect? Hmmm

Let me say that I am a wee bit type-A...

Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2014)

Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2015)

Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2016)

etc., wicked noyce!

Russo-Crimean_Wars - 50+ raids/wars

Many with inidividual pages

Dating from 1465 to 1783

No timeline in page title, really?

IMHO, scrape this page and regex wordy URLs for

{{who_war_yyyy_wordy_part}}

Timeline_of_the_annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_prelude

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

(new naming team?)

Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2022)

(the saner naming team?)

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_phase_1

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_phase_2

Southeastern front - exclusively?

Not!

oopsies I

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_phase_3

29 August – 11 November

Not!

Phase 3 ends on 26 January

oopsies II: GOTO statement required, see Phase 4, Bwahahaha

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_phase_4

dead page walking

Phase 4 ends on 26 January

oopsies III: GOTO statement required, see Phase 3, Bwahahaha

invasion of the naming team body snatchers?

Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers

All of the above could be double or triple named with links to:

{{USSR_war_timeline_(YYYY)}}

{{Russian_war_timeline_(YYYY)}}

{{Ukraine_war_timeline_(YYYY)}}

{{Crimean_war_timeline_(YYYY)}}

{{Transnistria_war_timeline_(YYYY)}}

Where, obviously, a particular war main wiki page may be cross-linked to other main war pages.

Russian_war_timeline_(2023)

Ukraine_war_timeline_(2023)

Way different timelines with a bazillion cross-overs. They just don't quit, do they? Ultimately, some dedicated geek could encode all secondary pages to programatically redirect to the one true page.

All could be normalized, adding a timeline column to and based on the

Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union

40+ recognized and not recognized

Where 98% of none-timeline content is included (e.g. history of Russia/USSR, tribalistic basis for conflict - name your favorite tribe, etc.)

One Ring to find them

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/One_Ring

Issues_in_anarchism

Consensus_decision-making Bwahahahaha

Anarchist_law

.

😉

.

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Where 98% of none-timeline

Where 98% of non-timeline 149.10.151.92 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

ooopsies 149.10.151.92 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

ps

Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine:_prelude

Starting, in the main page, with a focus on 2021.

Typical of the other Phase commentary, Define prelude.

There is arguably 2,000 years of prelude, including tribal chiefs, tsars, etc.

This is a personalized aspect of the Phase naming system endemic to the other Phases.

Crimea (500BC) minimally is a prelude to Putin's childhood (1952) dream of reuniting CCCP (2014).

Where do you draw the line? You don't. You stick with a year-based naming system.

.

.

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

BEFORE

status = Ongoing (list of engagements · territorial control · timeline of events)

AFTER

timeline = Timeline of events.

This page includes a list of 3+ phases and sub-lists, on separate pages, by month with monthly and daily updates listed in descending order.

status = Ongoing (list of engagements · territorial control) 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you be a little clear? Lemonaka (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

very funny 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Wikipedia is funny, but not a playground. To test, please use your sandbox. Lemonaka (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is

not clear what changes you want to be made

regarding the first 7 (seven) lines of the posting, before Commentary.

School me...

.

.

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

BEFORE => "change X"

AFTER => "...to Y"

clearerrererr?

.

.

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

ps

Sorry, I am not reliable re "Source", only an opinion.

.

.

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Will take a lot of time to do this, waiting for peer review. Lemonaka (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

... to change from (x) => "status (...)" [one line] => to (y) => "timeline (...)" BREAK "status (...)" [2 lines]

Thank you for the prompt reply!

.

Dmitry_Puchkov

<< 149.10.151.92 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Melmann 22:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is completely unreadable. Please express what you want to be done in a more clear way. HappyWith (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

1) Very few people are going to be able to parse through this request. 2) The technical request cannot be implemented. There is no 'timeline' parameter for this type of infobox. The 'timeline of events' article can only be linked from an extant parameter. Consequently, in this particular case, it is linked to from the 'status' parameter. 3) The top section of this page explicitly instructs editors to [p]lease raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This page is primarily to be used for corrections. 4) Any alteration to the timeline article must be proposed at that article's talk page, though I strongly suggest formatting any proposals into paragraphs, avoiding use of non-standard punctuation, and omitting any unnecessary commentary, else the post will either be ignored or possibly removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

2) The first non-dismissive reply - I understand (now) that "timeline" is subordinate to "status" - Thanks.

Sorry to see the "unreadable" side comment - (happywith) - unnecessary, non-productive (unlike Mr rnddude).

I took the time to read many of your other comments (happywith) in "talk"s.

What an eye-opener that was...

Wow!

This (my) experience hopefully is not endemic to behind the scenes Wikiworld, a supposedly egalitarian and consensus-run process punctuated by overtly terse dictatorial individuals who apparently are *not* "editors" nor otherwise privileged... 149.10.151.92 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again, but are you sure you arent editing under effect of something? your comments make zero sense. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

y 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Split the counteroffensives from the Russian campaigns. Separate the kharkiv counteroffensive from eastern offensive and same with kherson Slimebor (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Holding until peer-review. Lemonaka (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, these counteroffensives are part of the larger campaigns/theatres of the war, they arent separate. SnoopyBird (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I LOOOOVVE the warm fuzzy's that a few otherwise unidentified individuals (titles? status? stakeholders?) pop in with un-referenced negative comments!!! Nice and personal! Dilbert™ school of people management? How 'bout instead say Thank you for your contribution! I am grand poo the III of this page, and I think your suggestion Sounds Great! However, according to WikiLaw volume 432,4242,232222.30 your contribution, though already read and not to be deleted, should be posted to SiberiaBox 3234.234.34 - so we may ignore it more readily. Following month's of anarchist (small 'a') and public deliberation we hope you will have completely forgotten your recent suggestion. Have a nice day! 😑 . << 149.10.151.92 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC) What are you talking about? All your talk comments I've seen are written with walls of text in this bizarre style that makes people have no idea what you're trying to get at. If people aren't engaging with your suggestions, you need to be more clear and concise. HappyWith (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC) What? sorry to ask, but are you ok? all comments you wrote up to this point are walls of text with no actual meaning, please, if you are under effect of anything, calm down for a second, as you may get blocked. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Reasonable and agreeable suggestions on a purely descriptive informative basis, without reference to content nor descriptive text, have been presented, repeatedly. I ask in this context what is a "consensus" and whom decides and whom implements? Is there a ChatGPS to employ, lacking personal bias and egos? For example:, as of this writing... - For months the "phases" dates and descriptions have NOT matched the linked pages content (minimally with respect to date ranges); - Several individuals have "suggested" that the apparent intent of the descriptive text (...Southern this, Northern that) do NOT match the content of the linked pages. Link title and content page should minimally match, whatever the specific content, re "phases", whenever it is best decided. END --- Poo Bahs (lacking titles, references to expertise, etc. non-consensus Gatekeepers none-the-less, "...as you may get blocked") respond, typically if not exclusively, with (click autoreply-text) "form a consensus elsewhere". Never a Please; By your leave; Якщо вам заманеться). When is a concensus reached in WikiLaw? Who says so? Are explicit threats of blockading also a part of WikiLaw? Do those who make explicit threats get blockaded first? Or never? Hmmm. END --- Re: SnoopyBird 21:16, 6 February 2023 HappyWith 21:10, 6 February 2023 Also, indirectly Slimebor 19:02, 30 January 2023 Lemonaka 11:47, 4 February 2023 You two: "What?".... Me too: Be nicer. Be welcoming. Be considerate. DonT write like an inhuman ChatGPS response... where 2 out of 3 sentences are click-autoreply responses $( if grep "phrase_01" <<< $YourTwoResponse; then echo TRUE) You two: (paraphrased) "You must be insane or on drugs, or both" Me too (I): Maybe... Not saying. Me too (II): (my) Clarity in the first couple of lines of the (my) handful of posts is absolute, RE: In (my) Suggestions... I listed four reliable world-spanning sources with more than five example URLs, per source In (my) Status/Timeline... I included (bold) BEFORE... (one line of Wiki-friendly text); AFTER... (ditto). In (my) I LOOOOVVE the warm fuzzy's... You two responded as if not reading (my) "How 'bout instead say..." (paraphrasing) "Do not alienate contributors, or pages will be maintaind by a handful of non-anarchist insane control freaks on drugs...". You will be in Trumpian territory if you charge me with insulting you or otherwise not playing by the WikiLaw re: "..you ok?", "...if you are under effect of anything", "calm down for a second", Personally and singularly insulting me. Hmmm. Want to work with you in the future....Not! ChatGPS requires "lightness" module install; reset conf file for "humor" module parameter to value 1 (out of 10) from current value 0. Restart modules, reload conf. . >> 149.10.151.92 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not reading all that. You should understand that competence is required in being able to communicate with other editors, so you either need to make an effort to be comprehensible, or you will be either ignored by the community or blocked by an admin at some point. This style of yours is completely unreadable. HappyWith (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC) - For months the "phases" dates and descriptions have NOT matched the linked pages content (minimally with respect to date ranges); - Several individuals have "suggested" that the apparent intent of the descriptive text (...Southern this, Northern that) do NOT match the content of the linked pages. Link title and content page should minimally match, whatever the specific content, re "phases", whenever it is best decided. END 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC) See MrRNDDude's response in Template_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023, I think this is the same request. Closing this mess of a thread. HappyWith (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Be nicer. Be welcoming. Be considerate. DonT write like an inhuman ChatGPS response... where 2 out of 3 sentences are click-autoreply responses $( if grep "phrase_01" <<< $YourTwoResponse; then echo TRUE) 149.10.151.92 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

NATO should be listed as a belligerent on the side of Ukraine. It has been openly known that NATO has been deeply Involved in said conflict it's misleading and not properly informative to leave NATO out of the belligerent section especially when Belarus is listed under the Russia column. Weapons are being provided, soldiers being trained in NATO countries and sanctions placed in support of Ukraine. All of this should easily justify having NATO as a belligerent in support of Ukraine. Here are multiple articles to support this recommended edit.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm#:~:text=What%20is%20NATO's%20position%20on,within%20its%20internationally%20recognised%20borders.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1150264976/u-s-nato-countries-announce-massive-weapons-package-for-ukraine

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/24/fact-sheet-joined-by-allies-and-partners-the-united-states-imposes-devastating-costs-on-russia/

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3248075/us-plans-combined-arms-training-for-ukrainian-soldiers/ HybridHigh (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This has been the subject of a few RFCs, and there is no consensus to include that at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Supported by: EU
NATO
2A01:799:15D7:6500:5909:80A8:8362:137A (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You already asked this several times, no? Volunteer Marek 16:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. There is no consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

War Causalities

On the real side their is clearly that Nato is supporting Ukraine but Russia is fighting alone. 110.39.174.16 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Iran?

In addition to participating in drone strikes, Iranian troops have been targeted by Ukrainian forces, Iran also smuggles weapons to Russia, and the authorities and controlled media repeat Russian propaganda. Also, Iran abstained and even voted against the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and opposed the sanctions and helped circumvent them. Is this not enough to put Iran in the war information box? Parham wiki (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There is an open discussion at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please discuss there. See #Please raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I cannot participate in the discussion. Replies and add topics are grayed out and whenever I try to exit it says "changes may not be saved". What should I do? Parham wiki (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I use the traditional editing interface, so I don't use add topic or reply. It may be an issue with the interface. However, there is no page protection active at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. I can see no reason why you can edit other pages but not that one. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

Ukraine is being Supported by NATO & EU DitorWiki (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. NOTE: this has been discussed many times, including several RfCs. It is wp:disruptive to continue raising the same request over and over, especially using edit request templates.

Also, in future please raise any matters regarding this template at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine‎ as requested at the top of this talk page. Xan747 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Add Russian opposition to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: these are not described by reliable sources as belligerents. M.Bitton (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2023

Add a link to Ukraine in belligerents, like it does for russia El Wikipedian (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. Ukraine is already listed under belligerents in the Infobox, with a link to its Wikipedia article. Xan747 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Usage on other pages

Parham wiki, this template is specific to Russian invasion of Ukraine. It should not be used on other pages. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article in which it appears. This infobox only does that for Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its use on other articles is a direct contravention of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Are you aware of any other articles on which this infobox is being used and where? I have removed it from Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine for these reasons. It should also be removed if it is used elsewhere. Your edit here is also unwarranted for these reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't know Parham wiki (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the edit Parham wiki (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

ukrainian losses: 500k russian losses:300k 46.205.211.221 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to add casualties to the infobox because it is constantly change and not known with any reliability. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Date revert

Johnson524: I believe that someone should change the date whenever the map gets updated. As you have said, the map gets updated whenever there is a noticeable change. If the map is not updated for a while, the outdated data could be deceiving somewhat. Don't you agree? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: I do in theory, but the map is not being not updated because a lack of editor(s) to correct it when it gets outdated: there just hasn't been any big changes worth an update recently, and when there is, Physeters is pretty quick to add it to the map. There seems to be a general lack of agreement, so I think it'd probably be better to get a third editors opinion on this, but, like, this is super minor in the grand scheme of things, so if you can't get a third opinion, I'm fine if you want to make the final call. Cheers! Johnson524 04:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I listed it. I'll see what they say. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In my opinion, the date should be the date of the last update. Even if there has been no noticeable change on this scale that just seems to be the right thing to do. Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: If an update to the map was made everyday to make sure it is always 'current', an unnecessary amount of changes would be made daily that wouldn't well reflect the situation on the ground. The war is currently in a stalemate-like phase, where while fierce fighting takes place on both sides, neither side can make a change large enough to be seen on this zoomed out of a map. Putting a fixed date on the infobox just makes it seem outdated to an uninvolved viewer, but it's really not, as Physeters specifically has been really good at updating the map when these changes happen, they don't happen daily anymore.

Sorry, I care more about this topic more than I thought I did, but I hope you understand my personal belief that the fixed date would downgrade the inherent integrity/reliability of the map to the average viewer, when Commons is still working hard to update this map when a noticeable frontline change happens. Cheers! Johnson524 22:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Why update daily? Just update when there has been a significant enough change, the date will then correctly reflect that change. Polyamorph (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• I can see merit in both arguments but would tend to agree with a date of the last update. However, a note that it is regularly updated to reflect any significant/noticeable change would address the concern that it may appear out of date. On the otherhand, why don't we ask Physeters for their opinion? Also, per the note on this page, this is not the place to get a wider range of opinions. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, @Johnson524, @Polyamorph, @Wikiexplorationandhelping, I honestly don't have a strong opinion either way, and both options are fine, but I would say that the "as of the last update" option probably makes more sense at this time. It is true that I update the map when a "noticable" change occurs, however, this does mean that the map does lose some of its accuracy at a small scale in the interim. The thing is, most people would never miss these small changes individually (unless they're intentionally looking for them), but when days (and now weeks) pass between major frontline changes, they do start to add up. I used to update the map every time the frontline moved, but some changes were so small that even I couldn't notice them after zooming out a little. I could go back to daily updates (which would definitely warrant using the current date at all times) if people would prefer, however, at this stage of the war, I don't know how necessary doing that actually is. Physeters^✉ 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking the time to comment @Physeters 🙂 I don't believe daily updates are the way to go either, and as long as you're alright with not having the current date as the date in the infobox, I rescind my vote against the change. Cheers! Johnson524 02:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  It would definitely be fine. Physeters^✉ 22:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fun fact, I actually made the change to keep it in current date a year and a half ago. The diff is here. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Wikiexplorationandhelping: Times change I guess 😅 Thanks for convincing me of this lol Johnson524 23:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposing to add casualties to the infobox based on US estimates

Russian invasion of Ukraine
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Russia Donetsk PR Luhansk PR Supported by: Belarus	Ukraine
Casualties and losses
120,000 killed 170,000–180,000 wounded	70,000 killed 100,000–120,000 wounded
10,242 Ukrainian civilians killed and 19,337 injured For other estimates, see § Casualties.

@EkoGraf and Cinderella157: Would you support the addition of casualties to the infobox based on US estimates? I think US estimates regarding both Ukraine and Russia are reliable and unbiased, since US also gives a high estimate of casualties for Ukraine. If other editors agree on this, I would like to change infobox casualties to the example seen here. Ecrusized (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The reasons for not placing casualties in the infobox have not changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What reason is that? Surely, you alone don't determine that. Ecrusized (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It was determined by editor consensus following discussions almost at the start of the invasion, almost two years ago. The consensus was not to include due to the very large number of different estimates coming out for both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't alone determine that. There were discussions at the article's talk page. This discussion should be taking place there too per the notice at the top of this page. There were reasons (plural). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. There indeed was little to reports on casualties at the start of the war. This has changed since then and most 3rd party estimates are close to each other. (EU, US etc.) Excluding Russian and Ukrainian estimates. I will ping you at the discussion on article talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Map

@WeatherWriter and @Czello since you are restoring the map, can you explain where the WP:RS is that supports it? Because I did not find anything by looking through the image details other than the creators which are Wikipedia editors. TylerBurden (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

See the 319 sources on Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The map’s talk page, on purpose, redirect to Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. See that talk page (as of this message, which has 7 active discussions) as well as the the talk page archive, which has 284 discussions. Sources for the map are spread across all those. On Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War, you can see the "Rules for editing the map", which state how the map is made. Just a reminder, these were all linked to you when you were removing the map. So I am presuming you do not consider any of those to be sources. I personally do. I shall let others comment, however, if I may offer a small opinionated thing, the map will not be removed unless maybe at least 40+ editors (given maybe a 1,000-ish have commented regarding the map before), also agree that the map is entirely unsourced…which I believe will not happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Since when are Wikipedia articles considered WP:RS? Wikipedia articles are dynamic and constantly vary in both content and quality, which is what makes them unreliable. It seems incredibly inconvenient in terms of WP:VERIFY to have to dig through talk page discussions full of debates and speculation on advances. You have also not responded to the aspects of violating WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:LEADIMAGE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] source for map. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely WP:OI is appropriate here: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. This would be the heuristic applied widely to maps across Wikipedia, so perhaps you want to raise this in a larger forum (WT:NOR or WP:VPP). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Would synthesized information fall into the category of "unpublished ideas or arguments"? I've worked with the map's primary editor to reclassify certain towns in Ukraine as previously Russian controlled, and thus the "blue area" was expanded to encompass them. While these edits were backed by reliable sources, the result is a depiction of contiguous formerly Russian-held territory that likely has not been published elsewhere. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Alongside the policy reasons above, this is an extremely useful image for depicting the ongoing war that a collage pictures, like that seen on the World War II page you mentioned, could not adequately cover for such a dynamic and ongoing conflict. If the argument is that the map is bad because it was made by Wikipedians, then EVERY map from the one for the Israel–Hamas war to the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) should be deleted, correct? All three of these maps have clearly defined sources listed in their description on Commons, so any argument against the reliability of these maps should be directed towards the listed map sources, and not the map itself. Johnson524 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of flags

Per MOS:TOOMANY (and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG), the "Commanders and leaders" section of the infobox makes overuse of flags. It should instead use bulleted lists with the labels "Russia:" and "Ukraine:" to indicate countries. – Primium (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

I suggest to update ukrainian confirmed losses by ualossesproject from current 46,450 (29 april 2024) to 52,562 (last ualosses update 30 july 2024) 79.116.235.238 (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the template page, casualties aren't directly listed here. You probably want to address this on TALK:Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War. PianoDan (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024

Change "falsely claimed that Ukraine was" to "according to Putin Ukraine was" Alan1996colo (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this page is for the infobox of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, not for the article itself; either way, edit requests are not for controversial changes, and many editors would object to such a change you propose and thus it should be discussed first. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

In your war numbers you claim that Russia has 700k active troops. You then link to source 9. Source 9 states that the 700k number comes from Putin not from facts and that it is largely exaggerated. Yet you guys lost it as fact... 76.170.1.27 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This complaint is misleading, but does need revision. The ISW does not claim that the figure is 'largely exaggerated', only that it may be exaggerated or that it may include non-combatant or irregular forces. Additionally, the infobox does not say 'active troops' is says 'active personnel' which is not a synonym and covers both combatant and non-combatant personnel. Whether the figure needs attribution to Putin or to Russia is for others to determine. The phrase '... in the area' needs to be removed or substantially altered. It is vague and undefined. Putin is referring to the 'special military operation zone' meaning occupied Ukraine and along the Russia-Ukraine border. Ukraine estimates 515,000 troops within occupied Ukraine, which is not the same area that Putin is referring to. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I have been of a mind that multiple entries for strength represent detail and have nuance more suited to prose than the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The infobox is ideally suited for handling black-and-white factual information, whereas nuance and nuanced information is ideally handled through prose. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding "Supported by:" for Ukraine

I was trying to add military support for Ukraine as mentioned in this BBC article from 2023,[2] but it was removed.[3] Specifically, I was pointing out the "top donor countries", and we also have an article about this: List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Considering that Ukraine's military budget in 2021 was 6 billion[4] and that foreign aid to date is around 380 billion, I do not see how this figure can be omitted.[5] Mhorg (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The use of supported by in the template is broadly deprecated. An explicit affirmative consensus is needed for its use. This is pursuant to the discussion that was held here. Such a consensus exists for Belarus. There is discussion on-going over North Korea, as well. General discussion of foreign involvement is linked in footnote c. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude Thank you for your answer. Where do you think it is correct to ask this question for wider participation of other colleagues? Mhorg (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine is the place where such discussions are held. That said, I recommend you review the FAQ before proceeding. You may have more success proposing an addition to the article body, than to the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

In the info box under Beligerents, please list the US and the EU as supporters of Ukraine. CarbShark (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

They are not involved in combat operations. Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

North Korea and ""Undue Weight""

@TylerBurden I didn't want to edit war so I'm raising this here but I'm not sure how you can frame the edit I made as violating the Undue Weight policy.

How Undue Weight works is that if I made an edit saying "there is no proof that North Korea is involved with the war in Ukraine" and cited North Korean officials, then you would be right to revert it. Because that's actually undue weight.

On the other hand, if a North Korea officially denies being involved in Ukraine, and then you simply make an edit saying "This is denied by North Korea" cited by Reliable sources, then that doesn't violate Undue Weight.

There is already precedent for treating it in this way. For instance, you are of the opinion that the Houthi sources would fall under Undue Weight, however, ideology part of the Houthi movement info says "denied" by the Houthis for multiple things. That doesn't violate Undue Weight, since it is at the end of the day true that the Houthis deny that, what's important is you don't give it a monopoly on the page. Weight would be violated IF you took the Houthis denying that as proof that they are not sectarians. similarly, weight would be violated if I removed all mention of North Korea on the grounds of those statements. But simply saying that North Korea denies involvement, doesn't seem to violate Weight at all :^O

With that in mind, could you please consent to allowing the edit? >_> Genabab (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A note saying why we list them, and noting official denials would serve this purpose. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good compromise. I'll work on that now Genabab (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the most recent revision by Flemmish Nietzsche finds a balance if we are going to insist on including official North Korea stances in the infobox, though I don't see how it's in line with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE either since this is absolutely not a "key fact" in the article, in fact we don't mention NK denials at all, making it precisely the kind of supplementary content discouraged by this guideline. TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden I have taken the liberty of adding a piece about NK's denial of this in the page itself. This, combined with the page itself reffering to North Korea's presence in Russia as alleged is more than enough reason to just accept the compromise edit proposed by slatersteven. Genabab (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You have already been formally warned by an administrator about WP:DUEWEIGHT and insisting on including content because you think it can be verified, before for terrorist group statements and now for NK. You haven't demonstrated that North Korea's denial appears in enough reliable secondary sources to justify giving it this weight, in fact from what I can see the vast majority of RS make no mention of it. So no, I won't "just accept" this proposal. TylerBurden (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

> You haven't demonstrated that North Korea's denial appears

Well, help me out here. What do you have to see to accept that North Korea denies this?

> giving it this weight

Mind you, the weight in question is a note most casual readers won't even see. I really don't see what the big issue is. Genabab (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll add other reliable sources here that do say North Korea denies this:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-ukraine-lloyd-austin "Pyongyang has denied sending troops to Russia, but its vice foreign minister said that were such a deployment to happen, it would be in line with global norms."

2. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/10/31/us-and-south-korea-call-for-north-korea-to-withdraw-troops-from-russia_6731067_4.html "Pyongyang has denied sending troops to Russia, but its vice foreign minister said that were such a deployment to happen, it would be in line with global norms. North Korea and Russia are both under United Nations sanctions – Pyongyang for its nuclear weapons program, and Moscow for the Ukraine war."

3. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/22/south-korea-vows-action-as-north-denies-troops-involvement-in-ukraine-war "South Korea has pledged it will take measures to counter military cooperation between Russia and North Korea despite denials from Pyongyang that it has sent troops to support Moscow’s war on Ukraine."

4. https://www.nytimes.com/article/north-korea-troops-russia-ukraine.html "Although North Korea has denied sending troops to aid Moscow, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appeared to acknowledge the move" (it's paywalled so I can't check what comes after that)

5. https://www.barrons.com/news/north-korea-un-representative-denies-pyongyang-sent-troops-to-russia-402f708c "North Korea UN Representative Denies Pyongyang Sent Troops To Russia"

6. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3283345/north-korea-un-representative-denies-pyongyang-sent-troops-russia-fight-ukraine Title. Genabab (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never said that North Korea hasn't denied sending troops. The discussion is about you insisting on including this fact on the Wikipedia article, I don't think I will be able to help you out if you don't understand that.

You are suggesting to add it to the infobox, one of the most visible aspects of a Wikipedia article meant to highlight key facts that appears in the article, note or not, an authoritarian state denying something that evidence points contrary to (as outlined by sources) is not a key fact, it is the kind of detail that belongs in the article body.

Notice how all your sources are all from several weeks ago, since I'm sure you're aware this is a rapidly evolving situation, have a look at recent ones and see how much they are talking about NK's "denial" and you might have a point if you can come up with such a turnout. TylerBurden (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that. One is from *a* week ago. A few others are from a week and a half ago. And the rest are from October 22nd, which is about the time this story first broke out.

If I'm being perfectly honest this is the first time I have ever seen someone object to citing reliable sources because they weren't released today or yesterday but a week or two ago? I know it's WP to assume Good Faith but... look, I get that this is a developing story, but I don't see how a developing story can change the fact that the DPRK has denied it and that very recent publications (A week ago is recent), report that they have denied it.

True, I haven't found any from today or yesterday that say they deny it but that seems absurdly reductive for statements that many of these publications have already reported on.. I'd be willing to drop the point as a whole if you can tell me where else this standard has been applied? Because this really is a first. Genabab (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what implications you're trying to make, I'm not the one insisting on giving undue weight to official statements made by terrorist groups and dictatorships, so maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones in a glass house here if you wanna talk about good faith.

Wikipedia's WP:DUE weight policy is about giving balance to content based on how much they have appeared in RS, and now you yourself has admitted you are unable to find that this is something that is being reported on widely past the initial coverage, in other words it's not significant enough for RS to keep talking about it, which makes sense because they don't take obvious lies seriously, but for whatever reason you do. There is still a lot of sources talking about North Korea in Ukraine, and the vast majority of them are not talking about North Korea's denial, you are correct that RS reported on the denial, and this has been rightfully included in the article body where it belongs. But this isn't enough for you. At this point I don't know what to tell you since you're now getting personal and evidently you are refusing to listen to me. Does @ScottishFinnishRadish have any input since the trend seems to be continuing with this user despite your formal warning? TylerBurden (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that this would benefit from a third opinion. Looks like the hang up is whether to include NK's denials in the infobox, and in my experience discussion on what meets the threshold of clear enough can be tough to find. Genabab, I think {u|TylerBurden}}'s issue (correct me if I'm wrong) with the sources you provided is that they show some initial coverage of the denial but no newer sources in this continuing event provide any weight to the claim in their coverage. If the sources are not mentioning it then that lends weight against inclusion, as the total sources about the topic discussing the denial are low, and helps demonstrate that sources accept the fact that NK has troops in Ukraine. Again, that's my reading of their argument.

Again, I think a third opinion is the way to go, or even provide a neutral link to this discussion on some of the main Russia/Ukraine invasion articles and get a bit more input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)