Talk:Luhansk Oblast campaign/Archive1

Ukrainian military claims successfull counter-offensive at svatove front
so, apparently the commander of the ground forces of the UAF claims there has been a successfull counter-offensive by UAF on this front https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/4/7405244/. This might deserve inclusion in the article. 1234567891011a (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ISW
Most of these references are from ISW, maybe try to find other sources? 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's really ridiculous. It also contributes to a crippling tone problem in the article where it only talks about day-by-day activities and makes it hard to tell the larger big-picture story or explain the reasons for events. I recommend more articles from traditional media outlets who have to explain the situation to their more general audiences. HappyWith (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Update this page
I think this page needs to be updated as we see that battles and conflicts around Kremina - Svatove line as well as Kupiansk again taking place... Changes on front are visible but I see her on the map advances just from 2022. 93.142.16.85 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to add Redut PMC to the infobox as involved unit
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is the same request as at Eastern Ukraine campaign, which is contested. Instead of issuing multiple requests across different articles, it would be nice if you could centralize this request in a single article and inform editors of all the pages you wish to make this change. Xan747 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add the private military company Redut (company) to the info box list of pro-Russian involved unit. The intelligence firm Grey Dynamics reported that the ISW designated Redut formation "Veterany" conducted offensive operations around Novoselivske (Svativ district) in the Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line, listed as "Kramatorsk (December 2022)" in the article. Zerbrxsler (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Name, again
I'm starting to wonder if it was a good idea to make the name of the article "Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line". A lot of the events we cover in this article, and the mainstream media cover as part of the battle are not on the Svatove-Kreminna defensive line. Also, it seems to me that the ISW is literally the only source that calls the sector "the Svatove-Kreminna line", but they don't even do that consistently. Sometimes it's "the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line", sometimes it's "the Kreminna direction" (this report, for example), etc. I'm worried we're just kind of taking that phrase from ISW reports and erroneously applying it to the entire northeastern sector even when it doesn't make sense.

There honestly doesn't seem to be a common name for it, despite it being a clear distinct sector of the frontline. An idea I had could be to move the article to Northeastern Ukraine campaign (October 2022—present) or Luhansk Oblast campaign (October 2022—present), akin to the way articles about the Syrian civil war are often titled. This would resolve the issues with making up an WP:OR name and with the nebulous article scope. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I do agree with the idea that this could be retitled Luhansk Oblast campaign, especially considering most sources calling it that are referring to the ISW, which as mentioned earlier, is inconsistent. I don't think there is a set name for this article that would fall under WP:COMMONNAME, so Luhansk Oblast campaign would be the best-fitting name.
 * I think both Kupiansk and Svatove don't deserve to be in the title, as they're objectives and not on the frontline. Unlike the proposed Sloviansk offensive, both Russian and Ukrainian sources use Kreminna, Kupiansk, and Svatove as interchangeable for the whole area. Jebiguess (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualties section in infobox
That parameter box has become extremely long, with tons of citations and opaque derivations of the numbers. We should move this to a new section in the article body called "Casualties and losses", and keep only the most important stuff in the infobox casualties parameter. HappyWith (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree and/or remove from infobox while this is ongoing and until there are good quality reports. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, all the content is already cited in the Casualties and losses section of the article, going to be bold and just remove that section from the infobox, and then beg forgiveness if people get mad. Scu ba (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)