Talk:Deir ez-Zor campaign (2017–2019)

Out of Date
the article stops at early October,updates are needed for the time after October and into November.Alhanuty (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Operation Cizire Storm
This is the title used by some references, so why isn't it anywhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B063:D38A:2042:D524:AB65:DE40 (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is. Cizire = Jazira = Jazeera. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the article
Perhaps it is time to split this massive article. The different phases of the campaign are really starting to become individual offensives by themselves and we are currently already on phase 4. For readibility I think its best to have an article about phase 1: SDF victory, phase 2: SDF victory, phase 3: ISIL victory, phase 4: ongoing and so on. If we still want to make the Deir ez-Zor campaign an overarching term we could add this for each of the individual articles LyriaSiders (talk) 19:48, 8 Novemmber 2018 (UTC)
 * Though separate articles could be created for each phase in the future, I do not think this would be a good choice now. The article is not that big at the moment (compare, for example, articles like the Bougainville Campaign or Kokoda Track campaign) and if we would split it most of the new articles would be small stubs or start-class articles. Applodion (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Isnt it better to have a "Battle of Hajin" article now? Needbrains (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Battle of Hajin might be substantial enough to warrant its own article. If you want to create one, and summarize the events of Hajin in the campaign article, you will hear no opposition from me. Applodion (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no discussion regarding the splitting of Baghuz Fawqani, all I see is regarding Hajin. Nevetheless I must say no for a separate article for Baghuz Fawqani since it is too minor and already has an article. Jim7049 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Baghuz was talked about in edit summaries, and no one disagreed until you raised an objection. I should have made that clear. Regardless, the point about the campaign article getting too large stands; I think we should keep Battle of Baghuz Fawqani; it is considered a major event in the news, and has received extensive coverage - as seen in the already substantial size of the battle article. Thus, the article about the battle can include the details, while the campaign article deals with the broader issues. This way, we can provide more info overall, without making one article too large. Applodion (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Baghuz Fawqani article is a mess, none of the references are properly named, none of them are dated. And there is way too much text regarding the events, which are poorly translated from Arabic SOHR to English. It should either be moved or reduced in size substantially. Jim7049 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think the article is a mess than you should help improve the actual article. Not move it to an already larger one. Ianp18 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, so should the other editors next time while taking references don't leave them for other editors to clean up. Jim7049 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality of the reference notes is its own topic. Point stands the battle warrants its own page, largely to reduce the bloat of the parent campaign article. Consolidation of information and making the descriptions less "wordy" will happen in the future anyway. Moving this "mess" article to an even larger, wordier article isn't warranted and barely even makes any sense.Thelovelyconch (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of words in this article which don't really say anything. It is pretty obvious it has been bloated to have a separate article on its own. The scale of the battle is way too small compared to the rest of the battles. Jim7049 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Hajin as a separate article?
Should the Battle of Hajin dawn it’s own article similarly to the Battle of Baghuz? It seemed significant enough for one and would help in shortening the article. Ianp18 (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with doing so if there was enough specific details about the day-to-day battle that would warrant a separate article. But so far I don't see it. There's other ways to reduce bloat also, like a general clean up and rewording of old info into concise, to-the-point statements. Which i plan to start doing so myself soon when i have the free time.Thelovelyconch (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)