Talk:Sloviansk offensive

Merge into new article
I propose to merge Battle of Dovhenke and Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia into a new article titled Sloviansk offensive.

It is clear that the battles on these three settlements are just attempts from the Russians to get closer to Sloviansk and try to seize it. Battles in this area started once Izium fell on 1 April. I think such a proposed article is justified in that it is clearly defined in time (post-1 April, maybe it started that exact day), space (Kharkiv Oblast and Donetsk Oblast south of Izium and the Donets, in villages near the Highway M03; I would not include fighting in nearby Lyman and Sviatohirsk although they cleared up the way for Russia to possibly use the T0514 motorway leading up to Sloviansk, which I think that they tried doing but were repelled at Raihorodok, so they could get a mention) and aim (Sloviansk, and then Kramatorsk, they are the major Ukrainian cities left in Donbas that have not been invaded and destroyed by Russia).

I am anyways not sure that the fightings in Bohorodychne, Dovhenke and Krasnopillia in particular are more notable than in other nearby villages. I heard a lot about Dmytrivka and Dolyna in the news. And lastly, including fightings in both Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia together into one single article, also considering that they are geographically separate because of Dolyna which is not included, is bizarre to me. Super  Ψ   Dro  23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that a Ukrainian government site decided to include engagements in places like Dovhenke and Bohorodychne in a paragraph separate from others starting with "In the direction of Sloviansk" in a report . Super   Ψ   Dro  09:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * do you have accesible link? Dawsongfg (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Super   Ψ   Dro  09:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See this British intelligence report. It says Russian forces will try to take settlements leading to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, which were their main targets back then (the report is from around 13 July) . Super   Ψ   Dro  09:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources talking about Russian actions towards Sloviansk .  Super   Ψ   Dro  09:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on merging the pages as Dovhenke is so close to Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia, plus it would also fix the issue of the other small villages around the way. Sloviansk offensive is also the common name used by most media sites to describe the area, the only issue is that the fighting isn't in Sloviansk right now so I'm not sure if that would break WP:TOOSOON. Jebiguess (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a bit strange to have it named Sloviansk offensive when there's no fighting in Sloviansk, but it is pretty much certain the offensive is towards the city, so I believe that can justify it. Alternate titles would probably be less precise and longer. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kyiv Offensive as well Dawsongfg (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed. Jebiguess (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree on making a page called Sloviansk offensive or something similar, there have been battles for many cities on the path to Sloviansk, and we cant make a page for each one of them. SnoopyBird (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Declined 3 different places Dawsongfg (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia are two different places too yet they're merged. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment we should merge this by now, the only people opposing this are dawsongfg and a IP user, by now i think me and most people here agree on a merge, so, can someone begin the merge?SnoopyBird (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of this and this is an ancient (i.e. around 10 months old) request so I'm just gonna start the merging process now Presidentofyes12 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll start it now - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Rebuke to “merge into new article”
I suggest the immediate decision to end the request for merging it. Not only are they two different places, but the goal was not Sloviansk.

Notably, the first attack upon Dovhenke was April 11th, the First Upon Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia was on June 7th. The difference is the Battle of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia were an attempted offensive moving southwestward, while the Battle of Dovhenke was a spoiling attack moving southeastward. They were supposed to meet at the border, not at Sloviansk.

They were also in two different Oblasts, Kharkiv and Donetsk. Both were directed to meet each other at the Oblast border, neither were aiming to at eventually reaching Sloviansk. Nor were they moving on the same direction, or in the same area. 96.242.227.52 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And once they met they would go to Sloviansk. That's what sources say. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Kupiansk offensive
If, according to this perception, there was an offensive on Sloviansk, then the Russian Kupiansk offensive has been taking place since June 19 of this year, but there is no article on that topic. If I had dared to make it, I would have been instantly deleted, as well as the battles for the place of Dvorichna and Krasnohorivka, which have a greater geostrategic importance than Balakleya. — Baba Mica (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits to infobox
Re this edit by :
 * It would add a dot-point under the result parameter. MOS:MIL gives specific voice to the template documentation which is very specific as to permitted entries against the result parameter. Accordingly, dot-points are not supported.
 * The Donetsk People's Republic was added to the infobox as a belligerent. This is not supported by the body of the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article. Addition of the Donetsk People's Republic is not so supported.
 * The exception under MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS for military conflicts is conditional. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This only occurs when there is more than one co-belligerent on one side AND when information in other fields is specific to the identified belligerents as conveyed by the use of the flags. The second condition is not satisfied. The flag icons added do not convey information in addition to the text that does not otherwise fall to MOS:ICONDECORATION - Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. The addition of the flags is not supported by MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS.

Accordingly, the edit has been reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting me on the addition of the DPR, after reading the article again, it doesn't appear to be mentioned.
 * Regarding a dot point after the end result, a simple "Ukrainian victory" is vague and doesn't align with the full context of the article. Russian forces captured several villages - Dovhenke, Dmytrivka, Studenok - all of which are mentioned in the article body. They then lost those villages due to a counteroffensive from the south and west, which later became the Kharkiv counteroffensive. Adding that in the infobox would fall under WP:PRECISE, with the wording of "Russian forces capture several villages north of Sloviansk, but are forced to retreat during the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive" (yes, I know this is what my previous edits said.) I also cannot find the section you're mentioning in MOS:MIL regarding "very specific as to permitted entries against the result parameter." If you could link/copy that, that would be helpful.
 * On the flag note, your statement that "they convey information in addition to the text" is negated by the blurb afterwards regarding the exception for military conflicts. Nowhere does it mention the co-belligerent necessity. Even then, the article mentions the Luhansk People's Republic as a belligerent supporting Russia - adding the LPR would not merely be decorative as it would convey, at a glance, the notability of the LPR participating in operations outside of Luhansk Oblast. The necessity of this information is one that can be debated over regarding the "improving comprehension of the article subject" section or "visual cues that improve the article subject".
 * It would be better to hold a discussion regarding the input of flags in this infobox, instead of unilaterally making decisions based off one interpretation of the MOS. Jebiguess (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * See the section on infoboxes (WP:MILMOS). It gives voice to the template documentation (template: Infobox military conflict) for the result parameter. Responses against the result parameter are specifically restricted to three values. Addition of other text is not supported - including dot-points. WP:PRECISE specifically applies to article titles. It is being mis-cited here. If Ukrainian victory does not adequately reflect the nuance of the result, we are instructed to direct the reader to an appropriate section that discusses the result. However, there is no such section in this article. We are also told that it is quite appropriate to omit a result from the infobox.
 * The article does not support that either the DPR or LPR are belligerents in this offensive and the lead specifically states that it was fought between Ukrainian and Russian forces.
 * Guidance should be read as a whole. Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes ... Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This sentence defines an acceptable exception to the general rule. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infoboxes for military conflicts ... [emphasis added] This sentence lists cases where an acceptable exception can occur. It does not create a blanket exception from the opening sentence of the section - that [g]enerally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes ...
 * MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is general advice. It does not drill down into specifics of how flags can provide information in addition to the text in each instance.
 * Much like an acronym or initialism, adding a flag alone is not useful since it assumes the reader knows the meaning associated with the flag. That is why we define an abbreviation upon first use in text. Adding the country after the flag conveys no additional information not conveyed by the text alone. However, it may represent additional information if the flag is later used as a substitute for text elsewhere (in the infobox) much like an abbreviation. This is useful because of the limited space in the infobox. Combatants are grouped by columns. If there is only one combatant per column, then the use of flags is redundant - the only purpose they serve is decorative and MOS:ICONDECORATION applies.
 * I believe this addresses your response. There were several issues with your edit, not just that relating to flags. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this addresses your response. There were several issues with your edit, not just that relating to flags. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Did anything actually happen?
I've read through this article, and so much of the material is just "Russian forces launched attacks and failed" over and over again. Is this even notable enough for its own article? The only part that seems to be significant and not covered elsewhere is the "Ukrainian counteroffensive" part about the mid-2022 counterattacks around Izium prior to the larger eastern counteroffensive. Seems to me like it was just a minor sector of Battle of Donbas (2022) where not much happened. HappyWith (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree. I'm not seeing anything of substance here that cannot be effectively covered in a parent article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a couple more days to see if anyone brings obvious counterarguments here, then I'll propose a merge. HappyWith (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge, but only it is mentioned something along the lines like there was fighting south of Izium in an effort to take Sloviansk and to do a pincer movement to encircle Donbas. The two articles were merged on the basis that they were part of a common attack with a set of goals. I remember lots of sources talking about these two I mentioned back in 2022 when Russia still held a third of Kharkiv Oblast, so there should be no verification problems. See for example how a July 2022 British intelligence report stated Kramatorsk and Sloviansk were targets of Russia . Engagements in Dovhenke and others were recurrently referred to as in the "Sloviansk direction" by Ukraine . Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To the north, Russian infantry and armour have been pushing south towards the strategically important towns of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, Situated on the Siverskyi Donets River, Izium formed a lock that the Russian army wanted to seize at all costs to move southward and pincer the Donbas. , Russia's northern pincer advance would likely push south from the town of Izyum that lies strategically on the road towards the Ukrainian-held towns of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. , "Efforts by Russian forces advancing from Izyum to capture Slovyansk will likely prove to be the next pivotal battle of the war in Ukraine,", "We have radio interceptions of their talks; their task is to capture the Donetsk region from the north." , Moscow's next mission is to cut off Ukrainian forces by targeting the city of Sloviansk . There's enough sources talking about Russia's intentions regarding Sloviansk and for encircling Donbas and I would oppose the merge if these two, the essence of this article, would not end up being mentioned. If there's no sources connecting Russia's intentions in Sloviansk and the encirclement of Donbas I will not oppose the merge since that'd be original research. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be mentioned in the Battle of Donbas article after a merge, since there are RS to back it up. HappyWith (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I fully support the merge. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)