Talk:Russian Kyiv convoy

Criticism
One point this article fails to address is the notability of this convoy -- somewhere offering a statement why there is an article about it. While I think this oversight is simply due to wide familiarity with the subject, it still needs to be addressed. IMHO (or IIRC), its notability is that the convoy attracted the attention of many observers: at first it was considered a threat to the Ukrainians because it was bringing more men & equipment to support the advance on Kyiv; then observers were puzzled that it had made little headway; some observers wondered why the Ukrainians had not attacked this stationary target (I remember one person on Twitter commenting that every A-10 pilot was doubtlessly drooling at this high value target); & after the Battle of Kyiv had settled into a stalemate, & the convoy had not noticeably moved for days, some considered it an example of Russian logistical incompetence.However, someone with more time & better research skills than I have could probably elicit a better account of how this convoy had attracted so much attention. -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No proofs
There's no proof of a 64km convoy. There's satellite photo proof of a 1 km convoy, and no proof of where it is. Everything being reported is from claims by the US company selling the satellite photos. A company which is not financially robust. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/is-maxar-technologies-nyse%3Amaxr-a-risky-investment-2021-10-07 And now, when asked why we can't see the convoy on sunny days?, the company states it has broken up and is 'hiding' in the woods and villages, and Reuters etc. report that claim as fact, without questioning. It was never there. It's still not there (even in the woods and villages). Most of the video footage of tanks "being blown up" is either false, from years ago, or partly involves Russian tanks anti-aircraft missiles shooting from a very short convoy - not them exploding. And there is zero knowledge about if those videos are anywhere near Kiev.
 * }

Track GPS signals?
One claim in the article that is backed up by a source is "Russian forces might be able to track them and shoot them down through their GPS signals" (referring to the drones). This doesn't make sense to me: a GPS tracker doesn't send out signals, it just receives signals from satellites. --Slashme (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete per WP:recentism?
I'm kind of wondering if this shouldn't be deleted/merged on the basis of being an outdated WP:RECENTISM? Thoughts? At the very least it needs to be updated.  Volunteer Marek  23:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably best you look over Articles for deletion/Russian Kyiv Convoy - I don't think anything has really changed in the last 2-3 weeks as far as notability goes. And what do you mean by "it needs to be updated" - this seems to be happening?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There was huge press coverage of this convoy... so yes it was a noticable convoy. Do you suggest 1873 Vienna World's Fair should be deleted/merged too? The sudden mass interest in that event has long been gone... —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

name
In military parlance this should be referred to as a column, not a convoy. 194.33.196.48 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence takes this into account, also linking to the military term:

The Russian Kyiv convoy was a large column of Russian military vehicles stretching some 64 km in the Kyiv oblast from Prybirsk to Hostomel via Ivankiv involved in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Convoy
Is it known - at least barely - how it was composited and how many losses there were. Just the convoy itself, during its way and eventually fights on the way. Thank you 2.204.142.208 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Quotation character rendering issue
At the end of the first paragraph under "Deployment and retreat" is: ultimately “…[t]hey never really accomplished their mission."

In keeping with Manual of Style I tried to change “… to " but it ended up orphaning the quote mark on the line above the adjacent text, whereas it should have kept the character together with the first word.

I'm not sure if this is a problem with Wikipedia rendering (on mobile devices) generally or whether this means that there is some broken syntax in this page. I am describing the situation here in case someone knows more about it. Al Begamut (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)