| Revision as of 08:03, 2 May 2024 editSaintPaulOfTarsus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,042 edits Merged-from template← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:29, 24 November 2024 edit undoHoben7599 (talk | contribs)637 editsNo edit summary |
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<!---{{merged-from|Sloviansk offensive}}---> |
|
<!---{{merged-from|Sloviansk offensive}}---> |
|
{{Talk header|age=30|bot=ClueBot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{gs/talk notice|topic=rusukr}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e}} |
|
{{Old moves|date1=23 February 2023|destination1=War in Donbas (2022–present)|result1=not moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1142305755#Requested move 23 February 2023 |
|
{{Old moves|date1=23 February 2023|destination1=War in Donbas (2022–present)|result1=not moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1142305755#Requested move 23 February 2023 |
| Line 17: |
Line 18: |
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Siversk|16 April 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Siversk|16 April 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Kreminna|2 May 2024}} |
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Kreminna|2 May 2024}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Toshkivka|16 June 2024}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Battle of Sviatohirsk|21 June 2024}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|First battle of Lyman|23 June 2024}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
| age=720 |
|
| age=720 |
| Line 26: |
Line 30: |
|
| format= %%i |
|
| format= %%i |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Proposed merge of ] into ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was to merge. If more sources report on the offensive (e.g. the section in the merged article becomes long enough), the article can be recreated. ] ] ] 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)}} |
|
|
(Proposed after discussion at ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
There isn't much of significance in the ] article that can't be effectively covered in ]. It mostly consisted of Russia repeatedly bashing infantrymen against Ukrainian fortifications south of Izium over and over until the ] - which is covered just fine in other articles. Even though it's been over a year since the events, large amount of the material is also just not independently confirmed, leaving even less notable events in the Sloviansk offensive article. It makes most sense to cover the notable stuff in the Donbas battle article, since it was one of the prongs of that offensive. ] (]) 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' per nom and per discussion at the talk page of the article proposed to be merged. ] (]) 22:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom and discussion at ] ] (]) 01:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom and discussion at ] ] (]) 09:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support''' per nom and discussion at ]. ] (]) 03:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' As ISW and others have discussed, the operation was pretty notable/decisive precisely because the Russians failed, both initially and later on. A successful drive and exploitation could have had very serious consequences. Instead, the Russians ended up having to take a more frontal approach, leading to limited and Pyrrhic gains. |
|
|
:The main Battle of Donbas article has a far larger scope, and any weaknesses in the current article don’t reflect on the topic. In fact, the current revision doesn’t contain a lot of the substantive discussion found in sources, probably because it was only recently moved to its current title. |
|
|
:I would also suggest that the skirmishing around ] and ] be covered, as well as the Russian mistakes in troop dispositions and force-to-space ratios that set the stage for the Ukrainian counterblow, which is fairly extensively discussed by sources. |
|
|
:Unfortunately I completely missed out on that previous, closed, discussion which others have linked to. |
|
|
:] (]) 10:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::We could divide this campaign into many several subcampaigns. If Russia took Siversk it could have also been bad. Also if they took Avdiivka, or Vuhledar. We can't give articles to every subaxes of this campaign, and I am not convinced the fighting north of Sloviansk was particularly more notable than the others. Plus, {{tq|A successful drive and exploitation could have had very serious consequences.}} is speculation. {{tq|Instead, the Russians ended up having to take a more frontal approach, leading to limited and Pyrrhic gains.}} can apply for the whole campaign, or for the whole invasion itself. If this article got into a better shape and became longer, we could discuss a split in the future. But currently both the proposed merged article and the proposed target article do not cover the fighting north of Sloviansk in great detail. In my view having everything neatly packed into one article will make expansion easier, at least in this one case. ] (]) 12:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with this argument - the Sloviansk offensive page could hypothetically be its own thing, but the article as of now doesn’t have enough to stand on its own. We could re-split later if needed; not like there's much there in the Sloviansk offensive page now anyway. ] (]) 05:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' per nom and discussion at ]. Also in favor of what ] is suggesting, regarding some sort of geographical (rather than purely chronological) division of the information this article, if it can be reasonably implemented. ] (]) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hastily to supplement == |
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of abbreviated piece of crap is this article? What kind of artificial piquancy is this? Who says the battle for Donbas ended in September 2022? Who are you making crazy? What about the ] and the ]? ] and ] are not located in Donbass? This is hard core cretinism that it is unrepeatable to watch, let alone read. I have never seen so many cavities and malicious oversights in my life. There is more neutrality in the current ] than a single battle related to the Russia-Ukraine War. I had to write this or I was going to explode with rage. How rude of you to leave out Soledar and Bahmut battles. This is a crime by moderators and admins. My stomach hurt from nervousness. I no longer have the energy to look up anything related to the ] on the English Misplaced Pages. Trunke has no objectivity and all are ordinary hairstyles of piquantery wrapped in very low-quality wafers. The horror. — ] (]) 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It was either this or deleting the article. As the "hard core cretin" who initiated the scope-changing discussion myself, I put forward the argument that the idea of the "battle of Donbas" in its former form was largely invented by Misplaced Pages editors and not a concept actually well-defined in sources - and that the only actual defined scope for an article with this title would be the summer 2022 offensive, as referred to by a couple of military analysts. ("Summer 2022 Donbas offensive", or something along those lines, might be a better name for this article in the long run, IMO, but I doubt that could get consensus.) |
|
|
:For events in Donbas after Sep. 2022, see ]. ] (]) 22:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also, this is a massive insane overreaction to a simple transfer of content from one page to another. ] (]) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Better that this piece of garbage be removed from the article like many of my articles that have been deleted, edited or redirected than to look this disgustingly hollow, illegible and artificially shortened to the point of unbearableness. I literally feel sick. The ] never existed because the Russian forces could not get closer than 20-30 km to it, but from a bunch of my local articles related to the battles for nearby places, someone simply put everything in one bag and made the ] article. I understood this as a kind of simplification of the archival material of the fighting after the Russian victory after the ], until the heavy defeat in the ]. Essentially, the Russians never or still did not launch an offensive on Sloviansk not because they did not want to but because they could not because they were stopped at the places of Krasnopillia and Bogorodichnoe and at the city of Seversk. The ] was officially announced by ] on April 19 last year that it had officially begun, which happened the day before with the rapid Russian capture of the city of ]. That is all known. The fact that the Russian side slowed down the advance by no means means that the offensive was stopped in July after the battle of ] nor after the ], as evidenced by the Russian offensive operations in the battles for the places of ], ], ], ], ] and ], where the casualties are huge on both sides. This Russian offensive was stopped, but not by the ] in September and October last year, but after the takeover of ] by members of the Wagner Group and the ] that began on June 4. The result is tied because Russian forces captured the cities of ] and ] this year, but they lost ], ] and ] last year, and this year Ukrainian forces recovered many lost settlements around the city of Bakhmut and soon regained some lost positions in the city of ] itself on its western periphery. The offensive was stopped either on May 20 after the Russian capture of ] or on June 1 after the retreat of the ] or on June 4 at the beginning of the ]. There is no fourth, and it was certainly not stopped before May and June of this year. It is so obvious and the article must be updated until that period or better removed and deleted. It looks so amateurishly hollow that it's unbearable to look at, let alone read. A simple pamphlet. — ] (]) 06:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This article was always unnecessary duplicated trash. I had advocated for its deletion many times. Finally it was given a proper scope, the Russian offensive that ended after the capture of Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk. This article extends a bit after that because it still makes sense to group the info here. |
|
|
:::{{tq|The fact that the Russian side slowed down the advance by no means means that the offensive was stopped in July after the battle of Lysychansk}} they explicitly announced an "operational pause" right after it. {{tq|nor after the Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive}} we've never seen any regional-scale offensive aimed at taking the whole of Donbas after it, only focused and localised efforts at Bakhmut and Soledar, Avdiivka, Marinka or Lyman, or at small villages in Luhansk Oblast, these not having taken place at the same time being part of one single coordinated effort, rather an intermittent Russian try of their luck in different parts of the front every once in a while. Even smaller in scope articles like ] feel like they make little sense because fighting keeps stopping and re-erupting. Effectively the Kharkiv counteroffensive put an end to the strategy of taking the whole of Donbas at once as encircling it was not possible anymore. I believe the shortening of the article's scope was a very good idea. ] (]) 14:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] {{tq|Finally it was given a proper scope, the Russian offensive that ended after the capture of Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk.}} |
|
|
::::Considering that scope, would you be open to the prospect of moving the majority of the post-Lysychansk (July–September) information to either the background or early sections of the ] article? I'm suggesting this split because nearly all of the content in that timeframe takes place within the environs of Bakhmut, and much of it involves the Wagner Group. Geographically, I'm talking about places west of Popasna and north of Horlivka, like the ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and the like. |
|
|
::::I know you said {{tq|This article extends a bit after that because it still makes sense to group the info here}}, but considering the "operational pause" and the different geographical focus, I think adding that info to ] makes more sense than retaining it here. I also want to ping @] since I know you've been closely involved in defining the scope here. Lastly, apologies to all for replying to such an old comment. |
|
|
::::] (]) 23:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think it should be done. The logic here is that this Russian offensive was the second phase of the war, between the first (from the full-scale invasion to the withdrawal from the north) and the third (Ukrainian counteroffensives, starting in September) phases. Between July and September took place engagements that I do not believe should be included in the Battle of Bakhmut article, such as the ]. I think it makes more sense to keep pre- and post-July Russian advances in the same place as they have in common that Russia still had the initiative at that moment. ] (]) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Super Dromaeosaurus: First of all, apologies for my lack of clarity. I am not suggesting that the entire section, including Avdiivka–Pisky, be added to the ] article – only the relevant portions. The remainder should be removed and integrated into ] and/or location-specific articles like ]. |
|
|
::::::I think it's a fallacy to say that Russia lost initiative country-wide on the entire front line during September 2022. Wagner was still conducting offensive operations in the Bakhmut region before, during, and after the Ukrainian counteroffensive. I'd argue that in the Bakhmut sector, Wagner/Russia had "the initiative" the entire time. The post-Lysychansk engagements in that region are a prelude/opening phase to the ]; there is already some overlapping information, since that article begins on 1 August 2022. |
|
|
::::::But I think the key disagreement is whether or not the scope of this article should be a "phase" or an "offensive." You say {{tq|this Russian offensive was the second phase of the war}}, but I don't see them as one and the same - the "offensive" ended at Lysychansk, but the "phase" ended with the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It seems unreasonable to consider the April–July Severodonetsk–Lysychansk operation to be part of the same offensive as some later clashes much further south, which followed an operational pause. |
|
|
::::::If this necessitates a consensus to change the scope to refer strictly to a April–July "offensive," I am prepared to propose that. We don't have articles on ] or the ], because phases encompass a number of offensives in different geographical regions which are better understood when separated. |
|
|
::::::My best regards ] (]) 07:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to have status and title changed == |
|
== Request to have status and title changed == |
| Line 92: |
Line 52: |
|
::There was a whole long discussion about this. See ]. The scope of the article was changed to cover specifically the summer 2022 offensive, not all fighting in the Donbas. ] (]) 15:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::There was a whole long discussion about this. See ]. The scope of the article was changed to cover specifically the summer 2022 offensive, not all fighting in the Donbas. ] (]) 15:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> per {{u|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith}}'s explanation. ] (]) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> per {{u|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith}}'s explanation. ] (]) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Status == |
|
|
|
|
|
Status should change from inconclusive to limited Russian victory. ] (]) 11:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It would be nice if we had sources indicating the "result" of the "battle of Donbas". Everyone was so quick to report that it had begun, but almost never mentioned it by that name again. If you are aware of sources that support your suggestion please provide them. ] (]) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
I request to the status changed from inconclusive to ongoing. There's no indication that the battle of Donbas is over. There's still fighting ongoing in settlements and cities in the Donbas such Advika, Marinka, near Bakhmut and surrounding areas. It doesn't make any sense that the battle is considered over while both sides are still launching offensive to capture territory in the region. I also request to change the title to "Battle of Donbas (2022-present)", as the battle is still ongoing. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I request the status of the battle of Donbas to be changed from inconclusive to ongoing as fighting is still ongoing in the region and no information states otherwise. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
Note: since it was changed by HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, I think it would be best if they could explain why the rationale behind it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: per HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia until a consensus is reached. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)