Talk:Second battle of Lyman

Casualities edit war
The Ministry of Defence of UK tweeted there was "The force probably experienced heavy casualties". Yes Bloomberg, repeated it verbatim and technically you can make a point that it constitute an "expert" secondary source. It's not at all, it's a tweet but, I don't want a fight about this. The main point is : we need better sources than a vague "probably heavy" in the infobox. This is an encyclopedia not a rumor mill. There MUST be better source than this tweet if this battle is going to be encyclopedic. This article just rehash everything in the Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive with absolutely no details about Lyman. This page should be focusing on what happened in Lyman those few days, not an opportunity to repeat other articles. Iluvalar (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Slight confusion 1st, 2nd battles
Hello, I think to say that this is the second battle 2022 and then follow with ref to the 2014 battle is confusing. Can we put the 1st 2022 battle reference in the lead, not in 'background' -hope you see what I mean. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the right answer to this is WP:BOLD ? This page is only 4 days old. You should do the changes that you deem appropriate and see if anyone "contest" it by changing anything else. For what it worth I agree with you that Battles of Lyman should be linked somewhere early in the article. Iluvalar (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Krasnyi Lyman happened in the same place in 2014. Calling this year's battles the first & second is confusing. Should we rename any of the articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We now have Battles of Lyman, First Battle of Lyman and Second Battle of Lyman all created by  who seem to have some other of his created articles gone to suppression. Meanwhile, the best source we have for the casualties for the second battle of 2022 so far is an hypothetical tweet... Iluvalar (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Map
The map I produced is intended to aid with identifying the location of places mentioned in the text. It is enlarged to x1.8 (the maximum recommended size for most images, see MOS:IMGSIZE). Too small to read? It can easily be enlarged more. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Battle of Lyman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose a merge of Second battle of Lyman to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive.

There is no precedent in sources to refer to the Ukrainian advances in Donetsk Oblast culminating in the capture of Lyman as a separate battle in their own right, distinct from the larger counteroffensive. In fact, much of the content in Second battle of Lyman is already present in the target article 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. These events correspond very well with what has been termed the "second phase" of the counteroffensive, which includes simultaneous advances a few kilometers north in the Kharkiv Oblast.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons given. The content here is more about the big picture detail of the offensive. It should be presented as such, not as a vignette about Lyman. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose we can't keep merging battles into massive campaign lists, if anything, the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive page should be slashed down and individual battle articles should be spun off. Scu ba (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, yes. We should split off any substantial detail from big picture parent articles when they become excessively large. But each case needs to be assessed on the merits. What detail in the parent article should be stripped out and placed here (under this or another title)? What is the encyclopedic content here that warrants a stand alone article? To answer this (the latter), we must distinguish what is news and what will survive a WP:10YEARTEST when written in summary style. Without a positive benefit to the target/parent and sound justification for the spin-out/daughter, there is no justification to retain the latter. I'm not seeing either to be the case here. Are we missing something? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I remember this thing being a big deal in the news for some days when it happened. I ask for an analysis of what do sources say and how do they treat this topic. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Super Dro: I performed a Google search for the exact string "battle of Lyman" and only a very small number of reliable sources seem to use this term at all.   None of them elaborate on the battle's spatial or temporal scope except perhaps for the David Axe article, which suggests that as of 18 September the battle had actually not yet begun.
 * So it seems that no source is using the term "battle of Lyman" to refer to all the Ukrainian advances in the Donetsk Oblast since 3 September. Grouping this information together is geographically and chronologically logical, but to depict it as a "battle" with start and end dates, in the absence of reliable sources doing so, seems to be an inappropriate basis for an article and an undue fork of content from 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive.
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not every battle article needs to be merged. Campaigns summarize the battle articles while the stand-alone articles go more into detail on the battles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just !voted in the discussion at Battle of Kupiansk to support that merge. This situation looks very different. The article has a lot of detailed coverage of the battle itself, so I don't think it makes sense to merge everything into the campaign article in this case. Since the battle was notable, we need a title for it, and the current one is as good as any other. Sure, it might by SYNTH, but until RSes agree on a better name we can stick with it. Toadspike   [Talk]  14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article contains a significant amount of information directly related to the background to the battle, the battle itself, and its aftermath. While the "Lyman Pocket" section contains mostly information not directly part of the battle, the "Fall of the city and withdrawal of the Russian troops" section and the lead of the battle section contains a good deal of detailed information about the battle itself. Also, the aftermath section states "Ukraine regained an important railroad hub, allowing mop-up operations in northern Donetsk Oblast (on the left side of the Siverskyi Donets river)," making this seem like a significant event. I might suggest instead merging most of the information in the "Lyman Pocket" section to the larger article, while keeping the rest. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article contains a significant amount of information directly related to the background to the battle, the battle itself, and its aftermath. While the "Lyman Pocket" section contains mostly information not directly part of the battle, the "Fall of the city and withdrawal of the Russian troops" section and the lead of the battle section contains a good deal of detailed information about the battle itself. Also, the aftermath section states "Ukraine regained an important railroad hub, allowing mop-up operations in northern Donetsk Oblast (on the left side of the Siverskyi Donets river)," making this seem like a significant event. I might suggest instead merging most of the information in the "Lyman Pocket" section to the larger article, while keeping the rest. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Salfanto (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)