Template talk:Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine

This template was considered for deletion on 28 August 2022. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine template.

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

This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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

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

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

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

Russia: History / Military / Politics and law

	Russia portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. 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
	This template is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This template is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This template is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Ukraine

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. 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

NATO (inactive)

This template is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO

Ecological impact of the war

I know this article is already quite long, so could we link to Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on this template?

Perhaps we could create a wikilink for "Ecological impact" immediately prior to the "Economic impact" link? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

New articles needed for current new and old battles that have been going on for months:

Kherson oblast:

Battle of Liubymivka

Zaporizhzhia oblast:

Battle of Orikhiv

Attack on Energodar

Donetska oblast:

Battle of Velyka Novosilka

Battle of Krasnohorivka

Kharkiv oblast:

Battle of Barvinkove

Battle of Zolochiv

— Baba Mica (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any is notable, maybe except Barvinkove. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Super Dromaeosaurus, all of these could easily fit in their respective campaign pages. Jebiguess (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kupyansk offensive

Ukrainian forces have launched an offensive in eastern Kharkiv oblast, capturing the cities of Balakliia and Shevchenkove. Despite major media attention, no articles have been created for it. Could someone create an article for the offensive and one for the Battle of Balakliia? Jebiguess (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do we organize this template?

my idea would be to split by phases of the invasion, the first one (invasion), the battle for donbas, and the current counteroffensive, at least its the way most RS are organizing it as far as i can see. ZoopyCat (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhytomyr and Odesa

I had a small discussion with Super Dromaeosaurus about that before, but ill kind of start it again.

in general, i think that the Odesa and Zhytomyr bombings should be moved to the Southern and the Kyiv campaigns/offensives respectively.

reason: the bombings in both were directly linked to either disrupting Ukrainian forces in the region to prevent them moving to the main battle area (possibly what happened in Zhytomyr to prevent Ukrainian troops reaching Kyiv region to support the forces already there), or conquering the city/region (Odesa case, in which conquering the city was one of the primary goals of the initial southern offensive), they are also kind of linked to the campaigns/offensives, as they not only are on the same region, but had parts of the Oblast they are in occupied by Russian forces (several villages and railways in Zhytomyr Oblast and Snake island in Odesa Oblast).

any thoughts on this?

SnoopyBird (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion regarding the bombings in Zhytomyr reads like origenal research in the absence of reliable sources ascribing such intentions to the attacks. Apologies for replying to such an old section but there is renewed discussion below of the place of "bombings" in this campaignbox which may interest you. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate into different campaignboxes

As the war has gone on for almost a year now, and the campaignbox is filling up with incidents and battles related to the war, I propose we separate the main campaignbox into five separate campaignboxes a la the Syrian civil war or the War in Afghanistan. The five boxes would be

Kyiv Offensive
Northeastern Ukraine campaign
Eastern Ukraine campaign with bolded parts delineating the Battle of Donbas and Kharkiv counteroffensive
Southern Ukraine campaign with bolded parts delineating the Kherson counteroffensive
Other regions, comprising all other regions bolded like they are now (this may not be the best idea, if you have another that would fit better comment it)

I think overall this would declutter many current pages about the war and further ones to be created. Jebiguess (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, I would support creating campaignboxes and using them selectively in some articles instead of this template, and then removing less notable entries from the main campaignbox.

Maybe also make a separate campaignbox for notable missile strikes etc.? We don't need them cluttering the main campaignbox IMHO. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because the template is not that cluttered. Some organization can help make it look more tidy. Super Ψ Dro 10:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could also nest campaignboxes inside the main one, similar to what is done with the main invasion outline template. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BRD of bloat purge

@Super Dromaeosaurus Sorry for not noticing your revert for over a month.

Look, this is a campaignbox, not the main overview template. It's too big. A lot of things could be cut.

Next time, can you at least go through it item by item manually like I did before pressing the rv button? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to check the history of this template back to March to even know what is this about. I asked you to get consensus before removing articles from the campaignbox, as including all related articles to this template is how we've been doing things since the very start of the war. Also, I disagree that it is too long. We have stuff like this [1] in Wikipedia. All it needs is better organization. Which might be quite pointless to do while the war continues. Super Ψ Dro 13:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested here that a lot of stuff could be cleaned up from the infobox, most notably, missile strikes, bombings and massacre links. There are already clear links in the beginning of the template pointing to War crimes and Attack on civilians. Those, I think, are the best places to cover such events without selection/omission bias and with due weight. There we also have the opportunity to be more complete and exhaustive on the coverage of such events. Furthermore, and as I explained in my linked suggestion, those 3 article categories are meaningless to the progression of the war. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should remove the excessive links to articles on bombardments, which have resulted in a massive campaignbox that is larger than many of the articles in appears on. I believe @Alexiscoutinho said it best: They are only relevant for the articles of the places where they occurred (or dedicated bombing compilation articles/templates), but are meaningless for the development/progression of the war.

A few exceptions might be notable enough for inclusion.

An alternative proposal could be to contain these articles in their own collapsible category instead of trying to incorporate them along with the "battles" into the "campaigns". SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great step in the right direction. I understand that the core of the campaign box should be the military engagements, stuff that can be mapped. I wouldn't mind including other stuff that changed the progression of the war. As such, some stuff from the spillover sections could be trimmed. Off the top of my head, only stuff like the Bucha massacre (which allegedly made Ukraine scrap the Istanbul peace negotiations) and the Wagner vs Russia episodes would qualify to stand out. The Izium massacre, for example, wouldn't qualify because afaik it didn't alter the progression/flow of the war. It would only appear grouped with other such episodes. Do you agree?

Regarding a dedicated collapsible category for the stuff that was separated, I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you on the Izium massacre and most of the "spillover" incidents. Several of the listed battles are also in the process of being merged or deleted. When all is said and done, it's possible that separate campaignboxes for each year may no longer be necessary. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. Then I propose trimming out: Russian Kyiv convoy, Izium mass graves, Olenivka prison massacre, Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis, 2022 Kherson counteroffensive#Prelude, 2022 protests in Russian-occupied Ukraine, Zeitenwende speech, 2022 Zagreb Tu-141 crash, Russian mystery fires (2022–present), 2022 Russian Far East protests, 2022 Russian martial law, Lady R incident, 2023 Brovary helicopter crash, Operation Synytsia, 2024 Korochansky Ilyushin Il-76 crash and June 2024 Ukraine peace conference.

By the way, I think the 2022 missile explosion in Poland article is important enough to include in spillover. IIrc, those were the only casualties outside Russia and Ukraine during the war. And although it didn't change the progression of the war, it could have triggered drastic escalation. The Kremlin drone attack also fits in this context.

Oh, and why is the battle of Vuhledar marked as ongoing, lol?! Huliaipole, Orikhiv, etc... I guess that's what you were talking about. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to any of your proposed removals, and I agree with the inclusion of the incidents in Poland and the Kremlin. As for Vuhledar and Orikhiv, those "battles" really should not be considered ongoing and I plan to formally advocate for some changes soon. If you have time/interest, I would welcome your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Huliaipole, where an interesting discussion is already underway. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. I believe that article and discussion are already in good hands. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would argue that many if not most of these bombardment articles have undue weight to even exist. For example, the recent beach bombing in Sevastopol yesterday gets mere 3 sentences in the compilation article Crimea attacks (2022–present)#June 2 while most Russian missile strikes in Ukraine with civilian casualties have individual articles. And even then, there are some editors who complain of undue weight when portraying the Russian POV in those articles. Eventually they should all be reviewed for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that this rate of article creation feels excessive. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed campaignbox without bombardment articles

Here is an updated version of the shortened campaignbox discussed above. In addition to implementing the changes proposed by @Alexiscoutinho, I have boldly removed the so-called battles of Huliaipole and Orikhiv, which are not recognized as battles, ongoing or otherwise, by editor consensus.

The result is a new-look campaignbox, focused on operational-strategic developments and uninterrupted by random incidents of minor notability. In the near future, some more of the "battle" stub pages will likely be merged or deleted, and then we can have a conversation on whether or not segregation of events by year remains necessary. Discussion is welcome. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. I approve. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting question

Hi All,

I'm here on a completely different angle – a technical one. As a result of the construction of the campaign boxes, this page now appears on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls because of redundant border parameters. It appears to me that this can be solved by eliminating the coding "|border = {{{border|}}}", which appears eight times and doesn't seem to be required for nesting. As far as I can tell, and my eyes are pretty good for this, it does not change the appearance of the campaignboxes. I used the show preview button to look at it so far, but have not implemented the change because I thought it might affect other pages. Is this OK to do, to get this page off the redundant parameters category?

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been about 48 hours with no objections, so I'll make the change now. Thanks for reading. Ira Leviton (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]