This template 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 articles
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.
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[edit]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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.
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
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
- 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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@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! Johnson52404:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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! Johnson52422:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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! Johnson52402:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ☞️ talk20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Johnson52417:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply] Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).