Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1

Please avoid using, Social Media as a source from extraordinary claims.

This could also be said for the random pro-russian telegram accounts making claims of hundreds of Ukrainian military fatalities. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Of cource, Please

WP:PARTISAN.Mr.User200 (talk

) 19:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Citing the Facebook posts of the Eastern "Skhid" task force in my opinion is acceptable. It is from the official Ukrainian military account responsible for the Donbas region. This Facebook account has been cited by reputable news entities like this: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/826309.html. If that link constitutes an acceptable source, and it is literally copying and pasting the information from the military Facebook account, then it should be acceptable to cite straight from the Facebook post. It is the same as citing the Ukrainian General Staff facebook account, it is an official statement made by Ukrainian military officials. Additionally, when citing Ukrainian and Russian Telegram/Facebook accounts, I include caveats like "claim" or "according to," because casualty counts are almost always unreliable and if the Ukrainian or Russian military "claims" to have killed X amount of enemy fighters, then it should be acceptable to include that in the article, as long as you use caveats like "Claimed to have killed X enemy fighters" etc. PilotSheng (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, these are official communications, it doesn't matter what software they use to communicate, whether it be facebook, telegram or anything else. It matters who said it, and if they are a reliable source for what is being used. In this case, the information is used for the Ukrainian perspective on information hidden by the fog of war, so it is very much reliable for that, just like official Russian communications would be for the Russian estimate. Cononsense (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, thats not the case Cononsense, those claims are made by Ukraine regarding Russian losses. Ukrainian official releases are suitable for losses suffered by Ukrainian forces not otherwise.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

AGREED. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate, it is the Ukrainian "Claim" on the casualties. Thus Pilotsheng's edits should be reinstated and casualty counts updated to reflect that, with

"Ukrainian Claim:

X soldiers killed, wounded" 67.175.216.62 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thats not exactly how reporting in WP works, read

WP:SOCIALMEDIA

:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; => Do not fit the criteria since is exceptional claim no other source says the same.
2. it does not involve claims about third parties; => Do not fit since is a claim about Russian Armed Forces
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and => Doubt since is a claim and a Partisan one
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
For this reasons explained above, we cant use Social Media for this types of claim. Take into account that Ukrainian officials in the past have made claims of deaths of Russian Generals in Social media top later errase those threads and leaving the claim without way to verify. Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short, only use reliable media as trusted sources for this type of claims and from non-exceptional claims, mid-tier sources like regional media, specialized reports, etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this, I have gone back and found reputable media sources to reinstate this information. PilotSheng (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Mr.User200, usage of FB or Twitter posts as sources should be avoided as per WP guidelines. Also, great care should be taken when using potentially unreliable sources for unverifiable claims. Example - Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Have detected more links of Telegram and Facebook account of individual people (not RS), and those have been removed from the article. If content that deserve inclusion is only cited by Social Media; at least try to use those of accounts related to Reliable Sources or National Media. Dont use Telegram accounts of individuals.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an article, Battle of Popasna which should be linked to in this article, in a see also section. bob (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I will start to work on this article now. PilotSheng (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Rubizhne is a relatively important and large city in the donbas area and it was recently captured by russians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rubizhne, it should be added to the captured cities mentioned in outcome alongside Popasna. PROONTExchange (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You might be seeing an edit in the revision history looking something like -25,000 bytes.

Please do not be alarmed: I transitioned the article from a timeline article to a more respectable battle article, keeping almost all relevant information.

If you go upwards to Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Merging discussion, you will see requests to shift this from a timeline article to a regular article. This has been done. PilotSheng (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice, but how is this article different from

Eastern Ukraine offensive#Russian push to fully capture Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts now? I think the merge now looks more justified. Super Ψ Dro

15:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The page Timeline of the war in dombas that the link is posted only shows January and Febraury until the Russian invasion. 186.12.6.48 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the opening paragraph suggesting that Kharkiv is in the Donbas region? Great Mercian (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No, but there are numerous definitions over what exactly constitutes the Donbas region. In 1945, the Donbas was considered to include the present-day regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, but also the Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia regions as well. The current-day definition for the Donbas is limited to the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

With respect to what I think you're getting at, the reason why the Battle of Donbas includes Kharkiv Oblast is because the Russians never really advanced into the north of Kharkiv Oblast and towards the beginning of this battle in mid-April were conducting a large number of operations in Kharkiv Oblast cities that also bordered the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - Izium, for example. At the beginning of the battle, Ukrainian sources and Western media counted attacks in Kharkiv as part of the wider battle.

1. Most of the fighting in Kharkiv Oblast is limited to the southern area of the province, in the regions that border Luhansk and Donetsk.
2. Russia's offensive beginning of April 18 was not limited to the geographic areas of Luhansk and Donetsk. It included a massive southward assault from Kharkiv Oblast into the Donbas.
3. The frontline is not constrained by political boundaries. Ukrainian and Western sources both consider the frontline of the battle to stretch along the south of Kharkiv as well as even to the north of Kharkiv in addition to the political boundaries of the contemporary Donbas region to be a part of this overall Russian offensive.

I hope this helps.

-- PilotSheng (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You might see an edit looking like (-16,000 bytes) in the edit history; please, do not be concerned, I consolidated all the civilian casualties into one large table. To do this, I reviewed all the sources, some of which repeated the same information so they were removed. PilotSheng (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Change "to the terrorist quasi-states of DPR and LPR" to "to self-proclaimed independent states of DPR and LPR, backed by Russia and de-facto South Ossetia." 117.99.215.47 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

They also called the DPR and LPR forces "puppet forces". While Russia obviously does have a lot of control over these breakaway regions, they were not created by Russia, and are self proclaimed armed forces primarily from the local population, hence the term separatists. Destructor of Capitalism 24 (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In this diff, the author explains their reasoning. Holzklöppel (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening states ‘The offensive is currently taking place along the Rubizhne–Izium–Huliaipole–Mariupol line’

Rubizhne, Izium and Mariupol are now with Russia… idk whether Huliailopole is with Russia or Ukraine but maybe the other 3 should be updated? Severodonetsk I’ve heard about

I would source but there are plenty for everything I wrote on google Angele201002 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph to the article specifically names Kremina as one of the cities captured by Russia, indeed it was the first city captured by Russia after it launched the Donbas offensive, initially it was included in the list of captured cities but was later removed for some reason. It should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:65CE:391F:38F6:5AF2 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's absurd, that's the equivalent of 2 full brigades, they clearly meant that they have 8000 prisoners from FEBRUARY, not in the last month. And I highly doubt the number since the source is the LPR that has all the interest in lying. If Ukraine lost 8000 prisoners in Donbass alone, the war should have ended already since it would be 5% of their professional army. Should be edited out imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.151.69 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The usage is correct, it details Russian claims of casualties. How true they are is another question, this talk page is not the place to discuss them. Holzklöppel (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it sounds like that's confirmed. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Holzklöppel is correct. It details Russian claims of casualties. Regardless of how true the claims are, they are still valid claims made by one or multiple national governments (if the LPR is to be considered a government of its own) and should be included in the article. PilotSheng (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WHAT. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously though, WHAT. That's completely unnecessary and makes it harder for editors. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The references have been curated from all over the internet, have taken much energy to curate, and are 100% necessary until at least the battle is over, because it lists the reliable sources for the information. Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we need to have reliable, self-published sources to prove the information being stated in the infobox. Removing the references and simply stating "rather unnecessary" is disruptive editing, as without the sources to prove the figures being stated, all the numbers look rather suspect.

Please refrain from making a large removal of sources like you did today without consulting the talk page first and getting a consensus.

Thank you! PilotSheng (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Per this edit, this level of detail does not belong in the infobox. See

Thank you, @Cinderella157, for doing this - I've gone back and put all the necessary info into the body of the article under the "military casualties" section.

I do affirm that we need all those references because without them, the numbers look highly suspect, but you're right about the infobox - which is why I've dispersed them into the article. PilotSheng (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it is a good start. However, bare URLs shouldn't be used. This should be fixed at some time. I acknowledge that the infobox citations used bare URLs. The infobox should just give totals (a range) for each side. Because there isn't comparable information for wounded and captured, it should probably just report deaths. The other view might be to not report this in the infobox mainly because there is too much nuance, and put a link to the section. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I am going to work on fixing the bare URLs. As you can see the website https://mil-lnr.su has been taken down, which is where I was sourcing the LPR claims from. I'll have to go back through their telegram channel and see if I can find some references that haven't been taken down yet. PilotSheng (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The new update from Zelenskyy says 60-100 soldiers are killed and 500+ wounded each day in the Donbas. I think this should fit somewhere either in the infobox or in the casualty table. Any thoughts? PilotSheng (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The initial letter of the title is only capitalised in running text if it would normally be capitalised. Per

Cinderella157 That's the common name that has been also sourced. And the WP guideline says "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names". So SavageBWiki and LightandDark2000 are right in this regard. But I am not going to argue the matter further. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS) is not just that it can be sourced, but that (paraphrasing the guideline) there is a strong consensus in the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk

) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Use lower-case per

MOS:CAPS, as sources do not consistently capitalize this as a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Overnight, the list of commanders on both sides of the battle disappeared. Is there any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Per

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox summarises key points of the article. Save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. Cinderella157 (talk

) 02:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I just input a commander with an article stating he was killed during the battle (Kutuzov). Others, such as Dvornikov, Gerasimov, Pushilin, Pasechnik, Haidai, Kyrylenko, and Zaluzhnyi were input (I believe) because they are major leaders commanding or participating in the battle. Regarding Betishev, Kyshchyk, Khodakovsky, and Agranovich, I will try to find better sources for their participation and if not let's delete them. Jebiguess (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the body of the article that would support the inclusion of any of the commanders in the list. It is not simply a matter of sourcing. The death of a sergeant hardly warrants their inclusion in the infobox, let alone the article per

WP:NOTEVERYTHING Cinderella157 (talk

) 02:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Not. I took them out again, per Cinderella. Put them into the article if sourced; if some of these become notable, or in some way important, we can consider an infobox mention later, but for now I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s been three weeks since the map depicting the military situation has been updated, any chance of an update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:928:5301:1CEF:4BCD:B81D:B6AF (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, about time someone actualizes it Penedo173e788949 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to list out every city or town that’s fallen. It’s written in the article, as well as in the info box (although it shouldn’t even be there).

I’m leaving Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, and Rubizhne, because those are the most prominent cities to fall. When the fall of Lysychansk is confirmed we can add that too.

But seriously — putting cities like Sviatohirsk in the lead is excessive. It literally has 4,000 inhabitants and is not a major anchor city like the four I’ve listed above. If anyone has an argument to include others that have been captured, like Kreminna, put it here.

Also pinging @Cinderella157 because the list of cities in the info box is totally excessive. PilotSheng (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. The area captured is the more significant metric. As for the cities you left (Mariupol, Lyman, Sievierodonetsk, Rubizhne), only Mariupol appears to be of such significance as to objectively warrant inclusion in the lead. It occurred over a protracted period, it has a population significantly greater than the others. Cinderella157 (talk

) 06:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I think we should replace the cities in the info box with the claims of territorial changes (100% of Luhansk, 60-ish% of Donetsk).

As for the lead, with the fall of Lysychansk I’d argue that we should leave Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk, and Lysychansk, with the latter two being included due to the extensive media coverage that the battles for the two cities have received. PilotSheng (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If Russia controls Luhansk, then mentions of Sievierodonetsk, and Lysychansk are a bit redundent. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes so we only need to mention Mariupol and Lyman (which gives Russians a route). Dawsongfg (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We are starting to write the article in the infobox, which is quite contrary to

Serhiy Haidai told Ukraine’s United News he did not agree with recent western assessments that Russia had paused its offensive and was resting to regroup. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based thinktank, and British military intelligence have both said in recent days that Russian forces are resting and taking time to reposition themselves for the next offensive.

“There has not been any kind of operational pause or reduction in shelling,” said Haidai. “Their attempts to advance forward are constant. They are putting in new units, including tank units.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/russia-has-not-paused-its-donbas-offensive-says-ukraine-official

What does it mean? Withdrawal from Snake Island and attack on Sloviansk? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Donbas (2022) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"On 10 July, a Russian rocket attack in Chasiv Yar struck a multi-story residential building..." Please change 10 July to 9 July. It happened on 9 July, at approx. 21.17 local time. Anyway, the article on the incident says so as well. Thanks. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:2DFC:12E2:9912:8373 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an "or" here:

Now

Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske to Semihirya.

With edit

Federal News Agency (FAN) stated that Ukrainian forces can only withdraw to the northwest of Novoluhanske or to Semihirya. DuckTheDucker (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello the last paragraph in the lead is incredibly redundant, they also captured other cities and donetsk oblast and it's already stated that they captured all of the luhansk oblast. Dawsongfg (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

was taken by russian forces july31 2600:1700:E881:4550:AC97:5BBA:5DD7:FBE8 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

BS. That is not true, Avdiivka remains under Ukrainian control, according to an overwhelming number of ISW reports since then. Yavneh (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The correct English translation is "the Donbas", short for "the Donets Coal Basin" (in Russian), analogous to "the Middle West" or "the South" of the U.S. or "the Middle East". This should be corrected throughout WP after suitable discussion. In Slavic languages like Russian and Ukrainian there is no word for "the" (or "a") so those languages say "Donbas", but that should not mislead translators. Zaslav (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

When we say that there is a 'battle of siversk', I agree that this is correct. But when describing an area hundreds of miles across with multiple battles along its respective frontline, from siversk, to bakhmut to the outskirts of donetsk, etc. is it correct to call this a battle? To say that there is battles within battles or a battle of battles doesn't really make sense. Nor does it make sense to imagine the frontline as a continuous, singular phenomena? I hope you can see what I'm getting at here, another term should be applied, like theatre, invasion or something else. 86.1.33.129 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The right title is Donbas offensive. Also, it contains absolutely zero information about recent Ukrainian gains in the Donbas (e.g, Bilohorivka, Sviatohirsk, and far northern Donetsk Oblast) and that Russians have made very few advancements since trying to seize Siversk). 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Some could argue that the battle ended the day that the Ukrainians began the

Please discuss. Pinging some editors. @EkoGraf @Mr.User200 PilotSheng (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be to early to declare the campaign over, some fighting is still being reported in Bakhmut and Soledar, regarding the Ukrainian Counter-offensive in general it's divided in Kherson and Kharkiv, plus some advances on Donbas from the forces that came from Kharkiv. The current version of the article is ok for me. We should wait some weeks, is posible that a Russian breakout near Bakhmut materialize. We should wait some weeks.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The scope of this article is a complete mess in general, and I agree that it really needs to be defined better. Are all operations in east Ukraine after April 2022 part of the "Battle of Donbas", despite big gaps between offensives? No one's been calling the campaign a "battle" in a non-figurative way since mid-2022 apart from Wikipedia.

I've always been for merging this into

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and actually has a meaning distinct from the wider campaign. HappyWith (talk

) 17:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We need Reliable Sources for inclusion, please take into account too, that Presidential Advisor Arestovych is not the Ukrainian MOD or Ukrainian Central Command. Don't use url links to attempt to claim Ukrainian MOD have reported those numbers. Use only Primary and Secondary sources of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for the content of the article. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC in progress on

Someone clearly didn't read the article they cited as a source, because the article claims the following: "Despite the mobilization efforts of the Damascus government and private partners, Russia’s goal to flood Ukraine with foreign fighters failed. U.S. Marine Corps General McKenzie confirmed that there has not been a flow of Syrian fighters up to this point."[1] The source does not say anywhere that Syrian mercenaries were involved in the fighting, it says that Moscow only tried and failed. According to that article, there are no Syrian mercenaries in Ukraine, and therefore Syria should be deleted from the "Belligerents" section, because this is an unsubstantiated claim, even disinformation. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! I already started an RFC at

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where editors are voting to remove Syria as a belligerent from all the articles related to the war. Hopefully this kind of thing can be gotten rid of. HappyWith (talk

) 15:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The RFC has closed and the closer has said that Syria shouldn't be added at this time. As such, I have proceeded to remove Syria. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

This Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Russian forces had began" → "Russian forces had begun" 149.86.189.14 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent with the source in "Strength" section

In "Strength" section from both sources only one talks about number of Russians and the article claims the following: "Western officials estimate that Russia now has about 76 Battalion Tactical Groups in the region - each of which has about 800 men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61217528 This gives a number of about 60,000 Russian soldiers, not 120,000 - 150,000 as it is written in section.

The Battle of Donbas will be over when the Battle of Bakhmut is over

The last ongoing battle that is a part of the Battle of Donbas is the ongoing Battle of Bakhmut. When the fighting in/around Bakhmut is over, we can close this article. PilotSheng (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t Avdiivka in the Donbas? That battle's still ongoing. HappyWith (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut

as titled above. See Battle of Bakhmut DitorWiki (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2023

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 - Request withdrawn by Nom. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• Battle of Donbas (2022–present) → Battle of Donbas
• Battle of Donbas → Battle of Donbas (disambiguation)

We do not have an article with the name, for example, Battle of Donbas (2006). The Wikipedia article on the 2003–2011 armed conflict in Iraq is called the Iraq War, not the Iraq War (2003–2011), although the conflict is still ongoing. Parham wiki (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per
  WP:AT, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Cinderella157 (talk
  ) 00:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I missed Battle for the Donbas (1919). It does need disambiguation of one or both. One would need to be a primary topic and there is nothing convincing (nothing at all) as to which that would be. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely not "unnecessary precision". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• • Support Same for
    War in Donbas (2014–2022)
    . This is just a battle for a region. The War from 2014 to 2022 wasn’t just a battle, it was a war.

  WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: Isn’t Battle for the Donbas (1919) exactly this? HappyWith (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I lost it too. Close the discussion (I don't know how it closes). Thank you and everyone else. Parham wiki (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose not only is this article unnecessary for overlapping with already existing articles, now we also want to make its title confusing with other articles? I seriously doubt all of the readers are going to recognize the small different nuance in meaning between "Battle of Donbas" and "War in Donbas" and know which article is for what based in their titles. I also imagine many will see one of the two and believe that it covers the whole war since 2014. Also per the comment above there's a third article with a similar article. Temporal disambiguation is very necessary here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

This Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The City of Bakhmut hasn't been captured completely. And also the battle isn't over yet. DitorWiki (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources :

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 (talk • contribs

) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan747 (talk • contribs) 17:19, July 14, 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

This Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Russian forces Haven't captured Bakhmut. Please change the mistake as fast as possible.

Sources: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/19476&ved=2ahUKEwid3qz18pKAAxV5d2wGHc6TC6cQxfQBKAB6BAgFEAI&usg=AOvVaw1VBvifkOtKrd5kxMcx_kly

And

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621 DitorWiki (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝

) 09:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

i have already provide you with reliable sources DitorWiki (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

This Battle of Donbas (2022–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is wrong and is overlapping the Ukrainian Fall counteroffensives (September-November 2022). DitorWiki (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk

) 13:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian offensive (April 2022 - May 2023) section is to be divided like the following.

Section is two divide into two parts.

First Russian offensive (April-August)

Ukrainian counteroffensive

(August - November)

Second Russian offensive (November 2022-June 2023. DitorWiki (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: How to divide it? Where to add the new headers? Lightoil (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed; The article no longer contains info about the counteroffensive as part of its scope. HappyWith (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)