Talk:Battle of Kherson: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:15, 6 December 2023 editGenQuest (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,602 edits OneClickArchived "Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Kherson"" to Talk:Battle of Kherson/Archive 1 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:15, 6 December 2023 edit undoGenQuest (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,602 edits OneClickArchived "Requested move 24 April 2022" to Talk:Battle of Kherson/Archive 1 Next edit →
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\| format=%%i		\| format=%%i
	}}		}}

	== Requested move 24 April 2022 ==

	<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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''' to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. There is no clear agreement as to whether titles using "of" in this way necessarily indicate that the article titles are proper names, or more simply reflect a standard way of referring to battles. Relevant arguments were presented by both sides in the discussion, but it is clear that there is not currently a consensus in favor of the proposed moves. Separately, please consider creating redirects from the proposed titles if they are likely to be used by readers and editors. ]<small>]</small> 05:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	----

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Kherson}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Ivankiv}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Vasylkiv}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Irpin}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Bucha}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Brovary}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Slavutych}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Avdiivka (2022)}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Avdiivka (2017)}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle of Volnovakha}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Rubizhne}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battles for Sievierodonetsk (2014)}} (] is presently a rediredt to ]. Disambiguation can be dealt with by hatnote)

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Kharkiv (2022)}} (keep date to avoid confusion with other battles - see ])

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Konotop}} (] exists but there is no target for "Battle for". Disambiguation can be dealt with by hat note)

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Sumy}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Trostianets}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Okhtyrka}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Lebedyn}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Izium}} (] is a disambiguation page the a link to ]. No target to "Battle for". Disambiguation can be dealt with by hat note without need for year in title or disambiguation page.)

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Melitopol}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Mykolaiv}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Enerhodar}}

	*] → {{no redirect\|Battle for Voznesensk}}

	In the majority of cases, the naming is not supported at all by sources as evidenced by links. In no case, do sources indicate that the names would satisfy ]. The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle, that in these cases simply doesn't exist. This is misleading and can lead to ]. is already indicating this: {{tq\|in what’s been dubbed online as the “Battle of Brovary,”}}. The format "battle for X" does not have the same implication but is equally succinct, natural and recognisable and should be preferred. ] (]) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

	:@]: {{no redirect\|Battle of Sievierodonetsk}} that you nominated, is a redirect to ]. Redirects aren't subject to RMs. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • ] • ])</sup> 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	::{{U\|CX Zoom}}, thank you. It should have been for ] and ]. I have corrected this here and added notices. ] (]) 11:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

	:In dissent to the above, I will note how the google search results are not very convincing arguments either, and limiting to solely news seem to yield rather different results from actual usage (reliable sources include more than just newspapers, and in fact Misplaced Pages is very much ]...). yields over 16500, not the two results implied by the above link. The same search for yields just 7000... I'm not going to bother doing the same exercise for many others; as it yields similar results, ex. (3900) vs (700)... In all cases, even with only news selected, the difference is usually not even one order of magnitude, in fact in most cases both numbers are far below 10, which suggests that the number of reliable sources covering these in detail is overall very small, and thus that the actual wider conventions used everywhere (]) are probably a better guide. ] (] / ]) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	::I agree that WP is ] but the reality is that almost all of the sourcing for any article to do with the event of the invasion are news sources. Of the nominated articles, I would be hard pressed to find any sources used that are not news sources. I did also look at Google Scholar for the nominated articles and their present names. These returned no hits in almost every case and, in the couple of cases where there were hits, these were almost exclusively to wiki like sources. Not surprisingly, ngram searches won't give hits because the events are too recent. There was no evidence that would lend to these articles having a ]. ] would guide us against using raw Google searches as you are doing here: {{tq\| When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books).}} Your search for "battle of kherson" -wiki may return 16500 hits but returns only 36 results it would describe as "relevant". The using "battle for kherson" returns 65 results it describes as "relevant". For Avdiivka, each alternative returned only 32 relevant results. However, the premise of the RM is that don't have a body of ] (let alone good quality ones) that would lead us to conclude a ]. As to the argument of consistency, "battle of" is fairly consistent for engagements where an engagement has risen to the level of being know in sources by a ]. The evidence below is that naming is much less consistent (even tending to "for") for engagements that have not risen to the level of having a proper name (even if they might rise to having a proper name at some future time). There is no binding "wider convention" for naming that is not a proper name. ] (]) 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::What the google results do show, however you take them, is that people (average readers) tend to use the same convention as elsewhere, and that would perfectly match the other parts of the article title criteria (]) which you are seemingly ignoring, notably naturalness ({{tq\|The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for}}
	:::Even if, somehow, the usage amongst sources is divided, the advice of COMMONNAME is then to look at the other criteria ({{tq\|When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.}}). And on those, "to" wins the battle hands down over "for".
	:::As for the rest, as has been shown multiple times, the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources (in fact, you have not presented a single shred of evidence to support your ] into this). We should defer to the convention which is clearly documented (go look at ]; go look at the results from JSTOR which I show below; go look at any other source about history, ...), whether you personally like it or not. ] (] / ]) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::What google results show is not what "average readers" use but what web page writers (who in the most are not ]) use. ""Battle for" is quite a natural phrase. Reading my posts, you will see that I have not ignored it. For the most part, it is not a case of divided usage in determining a ] but no usages (for most cases). The quoted section does not apply (for the most). ] is clearly incomplete but what does it proove? Are more ]d battles called "Battle of X"? You say: {{tq\|the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources}}. Umm, your evidence? or is this the same type of ] presented without {{tq\|a single shred of evidence}}? Nothing you are saying here is any less ] than matters I am raising. To JSTOR as a resource, I have addressed this below where you first raised it. ] (]) 11:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I have shown clear evidence that "battle of" (with or without caps, not that it matters: in many cases, this is a stylistic choice) is used so frequently that it's nearly universal. You keep making an assertion that "battle for" is more frequently used for battles which are "not proper names", but have not shown a single example for this (short of a few examples which you, um, "created" for this purpose...). As such I am going to keep dismissing it as OR nonsense until you present actual evidence, such as usage in sources. ] (] / ]) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	* {{u\|Cinderella157}} If you haven't already, you may want to post a link to this discussion at ], since editors there may have knowledge of relevant policy or precedent in this area. ] (]) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	:] has been notified. ] (]) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' This seems like a sensible proposal frankly. I would support it. Until proper names are clearly stabilized by external reliable sources, these are just descriptive titles invented on the run by Wiki editors. Using "for" (rather than "of") underlines that better. But I am not sure if it applies to each and every one of the moves proposed above. ] (]) 16:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. More accurate description. ] (]) 16:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. Nominator has already notified ]. ] (] '''·''' ]) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
	:<small>Note: pinging participants of conflicting discussion at ]. Ganesha811 and Cinderella157 have already commented above, leaving {{ping\|Elijahandskip\|Gog the Mild\|prefix=\|p=. }} ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
	* '''Oppose'''. Despite no clear-cut common names being available online at the moment, "Battle of..." is still the established Misplaced Pages template for battle articles in various conflicts. Also, at least to me in a sense, "Battle for..." implies that a battle is still ongoing, despite ending. ] (]) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per EkoGraf and as Battle for seems as likely to be subject to WP:CITOGENESIS as Battle of. ] (]) 18:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I did a quick search on WP and as stated by EkoGraf, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages article start with "Battle of..." ie ], ], etc. This ] give an alphabetical list, and appears for every "Battle for..." there are +100 which are described as "Battle of...". Looks like most of the "Battle for..." relate to Science Fiction ie ], ], ], etc ] (]) 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' {{tq\|The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle}}—no it doesn’t. It’s a descriptive noun phrase. Who says it can lead to citogenesis while “battle for” can not? The entire rationale is unfounded, and does not even aspire to the level of unacceptable ]. On the contrary, “battle for” (or “at,” “in,” “near,” or some other other prepositions) implies a specific kind of relation to the location, in this case the adversaries’ objective being control of the city, and should only be used when that can be demonstrated for every specific case. On the contrary, “of” is natural and devoid of such implications, only creating a non-specific association. —''] ].'' 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	::I can get behind that reasoning - the common understanding is that "battle of" means a battle associated with that location whether it is taken or not. Battle of Normandy is probably a fair comparison. ] (]) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Strongly Oppose''' – The convention for military articles on Misplaced Pages is to use "Battle of X" in the article titles, as this is the standard convention and the naming style used more often. I don't actually see any articles on Misplaced Pages that start with "Battle for", and I don't see a good reason to change this now. I could see a reason for renaming a few of these articles if the "Battle of" naming style was the overwhelming ] for that battle, but I don't see that for any of these examples. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' per long-standing conventions which are ] both on and off Misplaced Pages. It's the ], it's the ], it's the ], so on so forth. ] (] / ]) 20:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' per above and the examples provided by {{np\|RandomCanadian}}. ]]] 01:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': Perhaps in a better world we might have "battle of" to go along with "battle for", "battle at", "battle in", "battle near", etc., but English has settled on "battle of" as the standard for names of battles, and we should stick with that. ]\|] 02:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	*'''Comment/rebuttal/evidence''': Commentors here have listed a number of well known engagemrnts as evidence for the format "battle of X" such as: ], ], ], and ]. Notable battles are commonly designated in good quality (often academic) secondary sources using this format. Moreover these generally rise to the status of being ]s, in that "battle" is consistently capitalised in these name phrases even though capitalisation is not intrinsic to the format - ie "of X" is a ] acting as an adjuct (modifying) the noun "battle"(?). These engagements that have been so designated in sources (plural) satisfying ] have this as their ]. Given this relationship to ] and the imperative that articles created in WP meet notability requirements, it is not surprising that the corpus of WP articles for military engagements is largely populated with the title format "Battle of X". ({{U\|RandomCanadian}})

	:However, this is not (as is suggested in comments) the exclusive naming format - not even for articles with "battle" as part of the name. revealed multiple example of "battle for" for actual military engagements (without even getting through the full first page of the search. ({{U\|Ilenart626}}{{U\|LightandDark2000}}) As an aside, I don't recall that any of these cases are ongoing engagements. Furthermore, ] (listed above as evidence) is clearly not comprehensive. There is no implication that "battle for X" is reserved for ongoing engagements, even though some of those listed for moving are probably still ongoing. ({{U\|EkoGraf}}) In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no ] and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a ] (per ]). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" should be preferred where there is no ].

	:Looking at some Google ngrams ngram results with hits for "battle for X". one tends to see a trend for early use of "battle for X" as a significant form (or mixed uaage). If it emerges that the engagement is known by a ] , this is most often of the form "Battle of X" however, if "battle for X" might be considered the ] then it rarely rises to being considered a ] (ie the most common name is rarely in the form "Battle for X"). This goes to the matter of ]. The format "battle of X" is most readily associated with "recognised", common or ] of battles. The articles for move have titles that are neither recognised, common nor ]. ({{U\|Gog the Mild}}{{U\|Mzajac}}{{U\|GraemeLeggett}}{{U\|SchreiberBike}}) I have pinged editors that have already commented at points of this post that would appear to be associated with their reasoning to oppose the proposal. ] (]) 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Ping {{U\|Severestorm28}} ] (]) 00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::In one fell swoop: '''nonsense'''. "Battle of" is a format common even for battles which are not "well known" at all. Ex. ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ... The format "battle of" is a near universal convention (the few more well known exceptions I can think of are naval engagements which use "off", ex. ];), in use both on and off Misplaced Pages. A look at lists like ] reveals only a few exceptions; ] has exactly none). Unless there is very clear evidence something is not known as the battle "of" something, the only thing using any other format does is actively impede readers by having articles at surprising titles. Arguments that following a well established convention is somehow citogenesis sound as hollow as they are unconvincing, since such arguments miss the whole point of the article title policy (which is to use recognisable names consistent with existing conventions). ] (] / ]) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::Umm, in this thread, I have linked (allbeit as a hyperlink) about 11 WP articles that use the title format "battle for X" and to my recollection, none of these are sea battles. I have reasonably made you aware of these examples. ] (]) 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::::11 examples, compared to the hundreds I have shown, pretty much is a very tiny and negligible minority. Also far less convincing when to support your argument here... ] (] / ]) 12:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::::And since the best kind of examples are counter-examples, here are:
	:::::#A few isolated of "battle of Verdun" (; )
	:::::#An instance of the "battle for Verdun" ()
	:::::#And even the "Battle for Verdun" ( on p. 291 {{tq\|Even the Battle for Verdun received scant mention.}}; on p. 777 {{tq\|As the Battle for Verdun began in February 1916 }}.
	:::::Of course, that is a very small sampling (that vast majority of the other sources use the capitalised "Battle of Verdun"), but it shows that this is simply a stylistic choice and has very little, if anything, to do with "battle" being capitalised or not. ] (] / ]) 22:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::::{{U\|RandomCanadian}}, I don't know what is realy intended by the links to "Verdun". would indicate that "]" is clearly the ] for the engagement. There is clearly a multitude of sources on the subject to indicate the common name as evidenced by the reference section of the article and of google books (ngrams are bases on the corpus of Google Books). While this may not always be considered a ], the ngram evidence would indicate that in recent times the Battle of Verdun (arguably) reaches the threshold to be considered a proper name. This, however, is not pertinent to the issue of this RM, where the engagements herein are not named in sources or, if they are, it is in such a small proportion of sources on the subject no common name could reasonably be asserted (ie there is no consensus in the sources). Yes, I have already acknowledged that there are perhaps hundreds of articles on WP using the format "battle of X" but such a listing does nothing to discern which of those are comparable to those subject to this RM. Nor does it discern what proportion of these "hundreds" have a ] and which have a proper name as determined by sources. Only five (in this sub-thread) have been indicated and of those, the ] would appear to have this as its ]. So the pertinent comparison is 4 to 11? Yes, I have changed capitalisation in articles but only where its being a ] is not supported by sources per ]. I do not rely on the changes I have made but on the sources (or rather the lack of them) that such instances are not ]s. ] (]) 02:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::::Either I can't read or the ngram link you give clearly, clearly shows that the most common form is actually "Battle of Verdun", not "battle of Verdun". You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names" (nevermind that these are not proper names, but stylistic choices). My example clearly shows that, depending on the exact style one chooses, all combinations are possible, and your argument is thus invalid. Not only that, it entirely misses the point. Whether the battle is a proper name {{sic}} or not, "to" and "for" are matters of choice and convention, however a convention which is very heavily weighted on one side and for which you have not provided any convincing evidence that it somehow doesn't apply here. I'm done here, nothing more to add, please stop ]. ] (] / ]) 03:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::::::The threshold for capitalisation as set by ] is {{tq\|... consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources ...}} It is not a simple majority. {{tq\|Misplaced Pages avoids unnecessary capitalization.}} Mixed usage of a simple majority does not establish that capitalisation is necessary. {{tq\|You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names"}}. Well, no. I have claimed that the format "battle of X" is more often associated with ], and {{tq\|In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no WP:COMMONNAME and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a proper name (per MOS:CAPS). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" ''should be preferred where there is no WP:COMMONNAME''.}} That is quite a bit different from what you are attributing to me. You did say you were done a long time ago. {{tq\|... please stop ].}} If you are replying to me, it is perfectly reasonable for me to reply to you - particularly when you appear to be misrepresenting what I have said. Your link looks a bit ] to me. ] (]) 05:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Come on guys let's keep it civil and to-the-point. I agree it is indeed reasonable for you to respond to his responses {{U\|Cinderella157}} but we don't need to make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints, it's not really conducive to the argument at hand anyway.
	:::::::::As for the central point, while I might agree that 'battle for X' might be preferred where there is no ], I really do think we could say there's a common name here considering it's about a conflict which battles are very frequently and numerously named along the pattern of 'Battle of <x>'. This isn't just my own opinion considering there's currently a broad consensus opposing the motion too. ] ] ] 12:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::::::::{{U\|Amadeus1999}}, I did not {{tq\|make accusations of ''purposely'' misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints}} but it is, nonetheless a misrepresentation. As to your comments about civility, that boat sailed with . ] (]) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::{{U\|RandomCanadian}}, of the lesser known engagements you have listed, are you asserting that none of these have a ] as would be determined by an assessment of reliable sources, since it is the premise of the move that none of the candidates have a corpus of sources that would lead to a ] for those articles. If this is your assertion, then none of those articles you list would have sufficient evidence (per ]) to support an assertion that the article titles are a ] and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet they all do. ] (]) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::::The MOS applies for articles. This is a bloody talk page. I couldn't give less of a bother about how I'm capitalising stuff on a talk page. Such pedantic remarks are frankly disruptive.
	::::And for the benefit of avoidance of any possible doubt whatsoever, what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Misplaced Pages and external sources show, is ''almost'' universal, and that the evidence presented here is far from sufficient to establish that these battles do not follow that conventionl. Now I'm done here, over and out. ] (] / ]) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::{{U\|RandomCanadian}}, you have misread my comment. {{tq\|... an assertion that the article titles are a ] and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet '''they''' all do}} - ie the articles are asserting that the titles are a ] by capitalising the phrase in running prose. The association of the format "Battle of X" with a ] is a tenet of my argument for not using that format when the the engagement does not rise to be known by a ]. ] (]) 04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::And that is, as I've already boldly highlighted, ] '''nonsense''' which is not supported by a shred of evidence. ] (] / ]) 06:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::::{{U\|RandomCanadian}}, my original question in this particular thread is whether there was a ] for the five lesser known articles listed? My own searches are indicating that these engagements have few or no sources that would result in a ] (except perhaps the ]) and none of these would rise to the title "battle of X" being considered a ]. Yet these articles would report (by usage) that these titles are proper names - supporting a tenet of my rationale. Any analysis (such as analysis of raw google search results) or statements of opinion unsupported by citation such as: {{tq\|... what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Misplaced Pages and external sources show, is almost universal ...}} may be construed as rising to ]. I see no citations being made here for any opinions beyond some occasional WP links. However, just as you would state that ] has no applicability to capitalisation on a TP, ] has a substantially different meaning and applicability between article space and talk pages. Shouting, swearing and making allegations of misconduct don't make one case stronger or another case weaker. ] (]) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::Well now it is rising to the level of ], but vague evaluations like “is largely populated” and “a significant majority,” when there is no defined corpus or methodology, do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications. None of the conclusions are supportable. “Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody, and other pronouns have not been considered. The rationale is not sound, and it does not override these obvious inherent implications. —''] ].'' 15:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::{{U\|Mzajac}}, the premise of the RM is that none of the candidates have reliable sources that would allow us to determine a ]. Consequently, even naming them "battle of X" might be described as ] but ] gives us general guidance on how to deal with such a case. The use of qualitative terms does not make the analysis less valid. I have provided the evidence so that my assessments can be confirmed. If you would state: {{tq\|... do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications}}, then the statement that follows, {{tq\|“Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody}}, fails for being an assertion made without any evidence at all. ] (]) 01:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC) PS, if you feel that there is a better alternative to the proposal, you are free to advance this. ] (]) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::Naming stuff as "battle of X" is not OR. It's following the convention (]) which is used almost everywhere, on and off Misplaced Pages. Try taking a look at academic sources, ex. (in contrast, looking for "battle for" will yield you both A) far less results and B) plenty of stuff which is not actually about a military battle but about some other form of "battle", for ex. "", "", "", ...). ] (] / ]) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::Selecting a name not supported by sources (when there is no ]) "could" be construed as ] but is permitted by ] in such a case. Please read my response and what I was responding to. ] is only one of the five principles to be considered and not an overriding "convention". Reviewing JSTOR search results for indicates that the term is used largely for engagements reported as having a ] - ie "Battle of X" is usually reported in the capitalised form in running prose. On the otherhand "battle for" returns many results that are not directly connected with military engagements. This serves to indicate that "battle for" is a ] construction. The search of JSTOR can be narrowed to a topic (military studies) as . Discerning titles or headings and like (where capitalisation would be expected) the results tend to indicate that "battle for X" is more commonly associated with battles that don't have a ]. This is a tenet of the proposition. However, broad searches do not address the pertinent question and premise of the RM: how we should name recent events which have no ] and which clearly have no ] (v historical events which may have a proper name and are more likely to have a common name by virtue of time). ] (]) 10:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::If you need evidence about the meaning of ''of'' and ''for'', it’s in any English dictionary. —''] ].'' 15:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	:: I see no evidence in the original nomination that "battle for" has anymore evidence than "battle of". ] (]) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	* '''<s>Strong support</s>''' Changed vote to '''Oppose''' per explanation above and below by {{U\|RandomCanadian}} <s>per above explanation by {{Reply to\|RandomCanadian\|p=}} as the use of ''of'' does strongly imply (inter)national recognition as a (significant) field of battle that in my eyes elevates the significance or recognition of a battle similar to naming conventions of battle theaters, despite the fact such recognition may not exist. Some of the examples listed by the original request probably still belong in the format "Battle of" considering they have attracted such recognition and dedication by consensus, ] comes to mind as a likely candidate for this. I'd be in support even more so for applying a distinction like this on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket transformation across the board, which seems excessive and might throw people off or cause undue implications for some readers.</s> ] ] ] 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:I'd like to add that '''historical''' battles that are discussed at length tend to follow the "Battle of" naming convention regardless, but seeing as these battles are recent, this obviously does not apply. ] ] ] 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::{{U\|Amadeus1999}}, if you believe that a particular article is an exception to the proposal, then you are free to advance this with an argument and evidence as to why it should be an exception. ] (]) 01:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	::My apologies, the above explanation by {{Reply to\|Cinderella157\|p=}} rather. ] ] ] 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::As my explanation shows rather convincingly, "battle of" is not reserved, in any way, for "significant" or merely distant historical battles, so your argument is not only unconvincing but has already been rebutted. ] (] / ]) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::Another thought in the category of "could have been shower thoughts": What about 'Battle of' for battles that ''took place in'' a certain place, and 'Battle for' in case a battle has taken place to ''specifically occupy or capture'' that place. This could be a detritus take but I genuinely pondered it for a moment, thought I'd share. ] ] ] 02:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::::{{ec}} {{ping\|Amadeus1999}} The ] was very much a battle specifically to occupy or capture that place; so was the ], so was the ]; same for the ]; and I can keep going back in history and picking stuff at random pretty much as far as I want if you need further examples. ] (] / ]) 02:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Hm yeah seems like non-sense on my part then. That thought was merely conjecture anyway. Probably shouldn't have even brought it up as it's off-topic. Thanks for your examples and arguments though. ] ] ] 02:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::Also, I've changed my vote. ] ] ] 02:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per RandomCanadian arguments. ] (]) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. A lot of the oppose !votes are badly reasoned. "Battle of Stalingrad" is not a descriptive title, but a common name. Same with "Battle of France". You absolutely cannot go around making up articles with titles paralleling "Battle of France" or "Battle of the Bulge". That would be very bad practice. We should not try to apply external naming conventions for battles to make up our own names. The UK actually created formal names for every engagement in World War I. Articles titles should be ''merely'' descriptive or else found ''exactly'' in RS. "Battle of" titles are not the former. It is not for Wikipedians to decide if the fighting in the eastern and western suburbs is one battle or two. ] (]) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:While I agree it is indeed not up to Wikipedians to decide, I still think ] applies here. If virtually ''all'' news outlets, articles, blogs, etc. use "Battle of" formatting, why should the Wikipedians then get to decide to divert from this long-practiced standard in favor of "Battle for", and how would we possibly monitor and moderate each entry as to whether it 'qualifies' for "Battle of" or "Battle for"? ] ] ] 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	*:"Battle for" implies a specific target, i.e. the battle was specifically aimed at the place in question and not for some other objective. In many cases, and probably applying in Ukraine, many battles happened near populated places, or named localities, but probably weren't directly for them. For ex., the Battle of Waterloo only has anything to do with that town due to sheer location and historical coincidence. It would be very inaccurate to refer to it as the "Battle for Waterloo": that was not the thing that was being fought over. If Napoleon had met the Allied armies, at, I don't know, Mons or Charleroi, the battle would still have happened. "of" on the other hand is neutral and indeed merely descriptive (as it indeed does not apply any specific relationship other than location). And it is very much the standard widely used everywhere (including on Misplaced Pages, which does indeed reflect how external sources describe something...). In this case, both "battle of" and "battle for" seem to be used by sources, but since the former is usually more accurate and fits with the existing convention, it should be preferred unless there is clear evidence that a substantial majority of sources are not using that format. ] (] / ]) 00:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::: Well, just scanning through them, most of the links listed above are for control of location cited, not simply happening at that location. If "control" and "target" is indeed what is guiding the choice of these article titles, then certainly "battle for" is warranted. ] (]) 03:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::{{U\|RandomCanadian}} (just so U\|Walrasiad doesn't think this might be directed to their comment), {{U\|Srnec}} has addressed the key issue: that the nominated articles have titles that are WP constructed. Much of what is said in your response is opinion without reference to authorities or conjecture without any evidence or if evidence has been proffered elsewhere it does not discern that which is applicable to the key issue. Such statements have been pejoratively referred to as {{tq\|WP:OR '''nonsense'''}} (even if not deserved since at least some evidence relevant to the point was offered). That ] is only a reasonable and valid argument if there is a sound basis for direct comparison. Painting with a broad brush does not consider the nuance of the key issue. To Waterloo, the battle is (almost universally) reported in good quality English language ]s as ] and as a ] (ie universally capped). However, it was fought at Mont Saint-Jean and the adjoining village of St Jean (see map in article). Wellington's senior officers were billeted at Waterloo some distance to the rear of the battlefield. In France, it was known as the Battle of Mont Saint-Jean. It just goes to show that the naming of "named" battles (in the format ""Battle of X") can be capricious and doesn't necessarily comply with your argument. ] (]) 09:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::I said I was done replying to you, and I'll stand by that commitment, so please don't ping me or post long responses to my posts again. Solely for the benefit of others: the above is still repeating the same (discredited, and hence indeed bolded nonsense) notion that battles which are "proper names" are battles "of" while those which aren't are battles "for". See my posts from 22:20, 27 April; or 13:19, 26 April; for the existing refutations. ] (] / ]) 12:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::{{ping\|RandomCanadian}} My point is that "battle of X" is a bad descriptive construction ''because'' there are so many reasons that a battle can get named a certain way. Thus, we have "Battle of the Atlantic" and "Battle of Crete" and "Battle of the Bulge" and "Battle of the Golden Spurs". It is true that "battle of" most commonly is a descriptive title indicate the (approximate) location of a battle, but it is not clear enough to meet ]. If RS use the form "battle of X", however, that is enough. That is, if RS consider it an acceptable short descriptor (even if it does not yet rise to the level of a common name), I consider that good enough for WP:NDESC. But if we are looking for a ''descriptive'' title for an unnamed event, we should never use "battle of X" on our own authority. For reasons you yourself have given, "battle for" is probably good enough as a mere description, as would be, e.g., "battle off" (for naval engagements). ] (]) 16:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::{{Reply to\|Srnec}} The more I follow this conversation the more I'm starting to think neither option is fully ]... I think we should just be ]. I really don't see any practical benefit to the average user or visitor to Misplaced Pages besides semantic implications that are vaguely sourced at best both ways. I feel like changing it to "Battle for", even if it were to be technically more correct, which I'm neutral on (on its own), it would be burdensome to readers; especially those not as familiar with the English language since everything they come across will pretty much state "Battle ''of'' <x>". This in itself might even create the implication or indication to some that the article is politically motivated at first sight, which is something we of course don't want. ] ] ] 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::: The precise benefit is to avoid ] and ]. We really should not be imposing names not used in RS that have a likelihood to slip into proper names. RandomCanadian's assertion that it is just a manner of speech is unconvincing. It is careless speech, and poor titling. Unfortunately, not uncommon. I've seen ridiculous cases done here by Wiki editors, calling things "Battle of X" which were never called that - and sometimes were not even battles! I remember having had to reverse instances of, say, a pirate capturing an unarmed civilian vessel from being dignified with the the title of "Battle of Somalia"! Or a guy stealing an elephant cargo boat being titled "Battle of the Elephants"! I've seen plenty of obscure attacks, raids, skirmishes, even one-sided massacres of civilians, get lazily called "Battle of" here on Misplaced Pages by overenthusiastic editors. This is all really bad practice, and should not be encouraged.
	::::::: Moreover, RandomCanadian is not even giving relevant examples. If you think things are only called "Battle of x", it is only because you are only recalling names of engagements (or series of engagements) historians have already settled on calling a "Battle of x". But they do not characterize every engagement that way, but tend to use it more sparingly. The ] is a well-established name in RS. But practically no RS will refer to the engagement at Fort Vaux as the "Battle of Fort Vaux", but only as the "battle ''for'' Fort Vaux".
	::::::: Everything listed above are individual engagements, defined by the area for which control is being fought over. They may be subordinate parts of larger battles, sieges or just skirmishes hardly worth the name. It's not for us to guess which name will stick. "Battle for" is perfectly fine as a descriptive title, fits the area names we are using (i.e. after what is being fought over) and doesn't run the danger of imposing made-up Wiki-names on the world. Let us leave it to external sources and historians to name them. ] (]) 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::{{Reply to\|Walrasiad}} Thanks for your insight. I do agree that overzealous editing can lead to skewed and problematic impressions. However, I also think that your negative experiences surrounding this '''could''' be influencing your view on this particular matter. That's not to assume bad faith though so please don't take it as such. As far as I'm aware it still holds true that most RS report most of the battles in the requested moves in the format ''"Battle of"'', although I admit I haven't done any deep research regarding the subject matter. If you have any ngrams or other convincing evidence that points to the contrary I'd definitely be in favor of that. As it stands I still think that ] demands we use ''"Battle of"'', particularly with regards to the recognizability aspect of it. I've gone through ] and could not find any existing naming convention (pertaining to Misplaced Pages specifically) and I do not know where we'd go to construct such a convention but we might want to do so, as I feel this conversation has extended beyond a normal move request and instead could/should be applied to a vast number of battles or conflicts. I'll ask around at the Village Pump to see if I can find anything, or any more experienced editors can of course tell us, I don't mind. Or they could just tell me it's a bad idea (and why preferably if so haha)
	::::::::/rant ] ] ] 20:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

	:::::::::{{U\|Amadeus1999}}, all of the nominated moves have links to searches of news source attached (noting that the articles are only supported by news sources). Few if any give hits for ''actual'' usage of the search term and if they do, there is certainly not sufficient (one or two actual uses) to assert a ]. That is why they have been nominated. There simply isn't ngram evidence because it is too recent and ngrams are based on books. ] (]) 23:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''' I dislike mass-nominations like this becuase what might apply to one article, might not apply to another. There are 24 battles, 21 of which took place during the past month or so, during the recent ], while the other 3 are from earlier in the ], 2 from 2014 & the other from 2017 (cmiiw). I respect {{u\|Cinderella157}} as they been contributing to MILHIST for a long time now. That said, I'm not sure why they feel a need to change these names, when {{fuchsia\|A)}} it goes agaisnst an obviously well-established convention here for the naming format of battles, and {{fuchsia\|B)}} it being so recent, we don't really know what version will become established in sources. Not just what newspapers are reporting now, but which format recognized historians will be using when they start writing books about the invasion, and war, and teaching about them in university courses. The war is not even over yet, (or the invasion for that matter).<p>Though this is looking like a snow-oppose, I'm not !voting either way. Instead, I will suggest that it would probably have been better to have waited, and/or address these battle names individually on their article talk pages, based on any unique merits that apply and, using the sourcing that is to come and is specific to each battle/article. {{small\|(Sorry about the length.)}} Cheers & Good luck to you. - '']'' 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

	== June 24 ==		== June 24 ==

Revision as of 05:15, 6 December 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Kherson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: History / Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Бої за Херсон from uk.wikipedia.

June 24

There are reports the Ukrainian Army is outside of Kherson City and have begun to enter. 2601:244:4080:D380:8C65:B8B2:2B10:6B3D (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources for these reports? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical

So I asked this type of question before but couldn't find it, so I'll ask again I guess.

If Ukraine were to recapture the city, would there be a second page like "Second Battle of Kherson" while this is "First Battle of Kherson"? Dawsongfg (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it is an oblast capital (and the only one captured), wording is the key. If a new battle occurred, and the city is not recaptured, it would be the “Second Battle of Kherson”, and this would be renamed to the “First Battle of Kherson”. If the city is recaptured, it would make sense for the “Liberation of Kherson”, due to it being a capital. (Similar to Liberation of Paris). Elijahandskip (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is dependent on how reliable sources cover it. It is not up to us to willy-nilly create titles for events. Curbon7 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Uh it literally is, otherwise Great Raid of 2014 should be renamed. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Why are all of the article's sources coming from American, British or Ukrainian media? They remain too biased and must be balanced by Russian media too. 37.237.31.14 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Russian sources are used like this one from the Moscow Times, secondly, all the sources used are WP:RS, so if you can find any Russian sources, that are reliable sources and discuss this battle, feel free to add them. No bias is in the article. If you think there is a part that is biased, you can discuss it here. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I support @Elijahandskip statement.

I would like to remark that Russian state affiliated sources are not often used since thy do not fall under the WP:RS due to their unreliable and often fabricated and generally unfactual nature.

As people trying to promote accurate information we must recognize what the Russian state is doing in the information space and must take precautions since our objective differ from those of the Kremlin in this regard. Castagna98 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson → First Battle of Kherson – This article is referring to the battle of Kherson in Feburary to March 2022, in the southern Ukraine offensive. The page should be renamed in order to avoid confusion with the battle of Kherson in the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Hydrochlorics (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and Wait: For now, it would be good to stay under the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive article. As Kherson is an oblast capital (and the only one captured during the invasion thus far), it would be logical to rename the new/second battle, once it occurs to Liberation of Kherson, similar to the Liberation of Paris article if Kherson is recaptured. If it is not recaptured & the new battle warrants an article, then we can rename this to first battle and the other battle as second battle. For now, the “second battle” does not have an article by itself yet, so renaming is pointless. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy close. Ukrainian forces haven't even arrived in Kherson. Why would we spend one single second into personal conjecture and hypotheses? Super Ψ Dro 00:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy oppose Concur with Super Dromaeosaurus above. Premature. Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Without a WP:crystal ball I see no Second battle of Kherson to confuse it with. —Michael Z. 17:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

When it happens it'll happen. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 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.

Add current events/update article with 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive info?

From the infobox, it appears like this article wants to discuss both the prior & ongoing battle(s) of Kherson. However, the article as it stands has mostly information regarding the initial Russian offensive from February to March 2022, and then an "Aftermath" section without any information regarding the current situation. Is there precedent to make a new section in this article to reference the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive since it relates to the Kherson Oblast, or should we wait until more information becomes available? Unburnable (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the consensus with these past battles is that this article is limited in scope to the events of February and March. Anything new is to be covered at 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Curbon7 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:StreamGamer. Curbon7 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If sources call it the second battle or just battle, then it's to be merged, otherwise it'd remain on there (even with nova kakhovka, melitopol, etc 64.82.204.2 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources are not calling all the summer attacks and ongoing counteroffensive by ZSU as "Second Battle of Kherson" and such naming would cause further confusion because the battle continued in this area. 罗放 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

ZSU capture abandoned Russian ammo storage in Blahodatne.webm

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hey Curbon7. Since you added the controversy template to the article, do you have any immediate issues/see non-neutral issues with the section? I'm asking because after my copy/edit request out right now for the article, I was hoping to GAN it. Any thoughts would be useful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally, such controversy sections should be intertwined with the article rather than separated out. Good luck on the GAN. Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Natural and logical sectioning and organization

This way the timeline is subdivided, with each day as its own sub-subsection, isn't great. It doesn't make for a logical experience when looking at the table of contents. It might be possible to organize it by "phases" of the battle instead, like how battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) does it. HappyWith (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Maybe 24-28 Feb is around Kherson and then 1-2 March is in Kherson? But then again, 24 Feb had the airport strike plus 24-26 Feb involved the battles at the bridge, which is also in Kherson. I know what you mean that it isn't ideal, but I'm honestly not sure how else to organize it besides the timeline, since fighting took place around Kherson and in Kherson just about every day. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. I might try to do some research to find retrospectives on the battle that might help us with analyzing and organizing the article in a logical structure. HappyWith (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, I'm on a self-imposed 0RR restriction, but I think at least one reference (the NYT reference named under "falls" (<ref name="falls"/>) should probably be added next to the Russian victory in the infobox. Some of the battles, even when it is clear who the victor is also have a reference next to the "X victory" in the infobox, i.e. Battle of Kyiv (2022). Also, since there is a common mistake that Ukraine won the "Battle of Kherson" (due to some sources stating the "Battle of Kherson" was the event in November), the source should probably remain in the infobox at least for the time being. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary - there's a hatnote at the top of the article saying this isn't the same thing as the November event, and there's sourced text that say it was a Russian victory easily findable in the lead and article body. Per MOS:INFOBOXREF, "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious". HappyWith (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reorganized it along the lines of the way this article does. Let me know if you have suggestions or criticism, I can adjust it. HappyWith (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Unit flags

I think a nice touch to the article would be to add some unit flags in the infobox like it was done in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive page. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG recommends against this. HappyWith (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

😢 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Categories: