Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas/Archive 1

Can you put it better?
In a response to the Independence Day of Ukraine military parade in Kiev, the pro-Russian militias marched dozens of captured Ukrainian army soldiers through Donetsk. People watching this parade chanted "fascists" at the captured soldiers and some threw bottles at them '''and one roll of toilet paper. The POV marched with hands back but not handcufed'''. The rally was intended, during German Cancelor visit in Kiev,' to evoke the Soviet's march of 56 thousands German's prisoners through Moscow in 1944.

Bold mark cut off. Is teh refernce to Mekrel visit to Kiew hunta a too unconvinient? or why it was cut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.83.60 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Random comments
Pro-Russian forces shot down a Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 with a "Buk" surface-to-air missile near the town of Yenakievo. The pilot managed to eject.[667]

Ok, I don´t understand the language used in the reference 667 (where has the people proclaiming that references should be mainly in english gone...) but as I read in other (th media, it is firstly, only aan the one used there) statement of 1 person, secondly, even he said, that it was only propably. But well, even though I think that if UA won it would be better for me, I have already given up on getting any objective informations from there... --Zuruumi (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

-- –I have another source here. –http://rusvesna.su/news/1407434066

–I have no idea how to add things, or use any of this coding bullshit, but I thought I'd link it. It's obviously very pro-Russian but it is still another source. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC) BLGR

The timeline article for the war in Libya against Gadaffi, had a vector drawn map that was continually updated with the events of the day. Can we get something similar for this timeline since, unless you actually live in Ukraine or have a major in European geography, readers are unlikely to have a clue where the referenced cities are or why they're important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.182.73 (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr IP, we have such a map at War in Donbass. It does not belong at the timeline. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone added the map anyway days ago. Now it's on both articles and they usually don't match. Oscar-HaP (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The map has just been updated. The problem is that there's a series of the same map in a number of languages. The only one being updated in a timely manner is the Russian version (which is used for the War in Donbass article). My thoughts on the matter are that the English version keeps getting left behind by a crucial number of days, and that a map isn't necessary for this article. If it's preferred that the map be duplicated here call out now. I'm going to go bold and simply remove the map from this article tomorrow. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep the map! Loving the map!  I have been a little confused about why the "English" version shows certain trends and the Cyrillic version has altogether different trends, but I'm generally happy with having either one.  Br.locke (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's evident that you like it, Br.locke... but it is available on the main article. As a timeline/list, it shouldn't be here in the first place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The map on the main article is not being kept up to date, while the one here seemed to reflect what was happening on the ground better, if not perfectly. either it should be reinstated here, or replace the one in the main article. IMO Daithicarr (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you care to check, Daithicarr, the map used in the War in Donbass is being updated on a daily basis now (and was being updated regularly prior your leaving your comment). If you believe that, for some reason, the map that was being used here is more accurate, I would suggest that it would be better to leave a comment on the main article talk page as the correct venue in which to put your case. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the map in the first place, and I feel that quick access to a visual representation of the timeline that this article is about, is not out of place. Clicking the map will even show you an alternative animated version of it, which further proves my point. I also do my best to keep the article pointed at the correct map, but others keep changing it to one of the other ones that are not being maintained. Plus, having to visit a different article for information that completes this one is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.178.118 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well,, I fail to see how you could have added it in the first place considering that you've only made two contributions so far: this comment and the re-addition of the map... that is, unless you have not logged in and are using your IP address as an alternative account.


 * Whatever the circumstances of the re-addition, it contravenes the purpose of a WP:LIST entry as this is a timeline article. The main article remains War in Donbass, therefore I am removing the map yet again in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. There is no call for duplication. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't care much about this issue, and I didn't (re-)add the map this time, just changed it to the correct language after it was (re-)added, but I have checked and nothing in either WP:LIST nor Timeline standards preclude the inclusion of something like a map, or even mention such a thing at all. Thus, the only policy that seems relevant here is WP:CONSENSUS. And, on that score, put me down at least as favoring including the map here too, as it makes following the events of the timeline nearly impossible without easily being able to check a map to see where all of these towns and such are. The locals may not need the map – but the rest of us surely do. --IJBall (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first instance, there was consensus not to have the map replicated here (also discussed on the "War in Donbass" talk page). In the second instance, why the insistence on the current map which keeps changing on a daily basis? Considering that it's a timeline, it depicts incidents day by day (starting from April), not what the situation is now? Surely, for those who aren't familiar with the region, an ordinary map with the names of localities mentioned is easier to follow? The map depicting the current status is already available. It's a timeline, not "today". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on a dynamic IP that keeps changing when I reboot my modem. Right now, consensus on this page is in favor of keeping the map, and you seem to be the only one against it. A different consensus might have been reached on the War in Donbas article, but that is also a different article that simply references the same event as this one. And regarding the "It's a timeline, not "today"" thing, in my timezone the latest entries "are today" so that is debatable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.178.118 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, why don't you get an account instead of looking like an IP hopper. As for your logic regarding the "today": no that does not make sense. This follows the entire timeline, not the overview (which is the War in Donbass article. If there's a call for any map, it should simply be one with the regions. Consensus is not reached by a couple of comments. Perhaps you should start an RfC if you consider it to be an important issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If the objection is to that specific map at War in Donbass because it's "time-sensitive", that objection I totally understand. But this page needs a general map. My suggestion would be to take the current version of the War in Donbass map that's updated daily, strip out all of the "color-coding" for "territory held", and make it just a "generic" map that shows the same town and cities as the current map but imparts no other information, and then put that at the top of this article. That would eliminate the objection that a "Timeline" article shouldn't have a map tied to "the events of a specific day", while still giving the contents of this page a much needed map for context. --IJBall (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific problem has been that the map (which has been reintroduced again) has fallen behind by up to a couple of weeks at a time since its creation, whereupon contributors have seen fit to substitute it with the Russian language version. A Russian language map on English Wikipedia is not edifying by any stretch of the imagination. I'll see if I can find a map already in existence, or will create a stripped down version myself. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

, you are now on the brink of engaging in edit warring. Do not continue to revert without engaging in WP:BRD as you have been asked to do. This and this (which doesn't even carry an edit summary) is not BRD. The policy is not bold→ revert→ revert → revert: it is bold→ revert→ discuss. Your content changes are now based on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda
All the reports by Ukrainian media of a direct Russian military invasion proved to be propaganda.So please stop posting those unless it is confirmed by an independent source.Catlemur (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources 'proving' that it is propaganda, Catlemur? The incursion has been widely reported by independent WP:RS. Talk pages are not for WP:SOAP. If you have a problem with the content of an article, please provide verifiable and reliable sources to indicate that the content is not accurate. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is you (Iryna Harpy who should provide concrete proof.Proof of a column of Russian soldiers (and not just volunteers and or militias) directly invading Ukraine.The sources that were provided are supposedly "a high ranking ATO commander" which seems pretty obscure and unverifiable.I am sick and tired of reading false accusations from both sides of the conflict from:"It's a genocide of Russian people" to "Russia has already annexed Kharkiv".Catlemur (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you learn to stay calm, . Which article is "accusing" Russia of having annexed Kharkiv, or asserted that this is genocide of (I assume you mean 'ethnic') Russians? Feel free to read the War in Donbass article for further independent WP:RS stating that it the Russian military have crossed into Ukrainian territory. This is a child article and, as the events are unfolding quickly, it takes time to clean up all of the sourced information. You are welcome to assist with finding better sources and checking sources if you wish to contribute constructively. Fielding omplaints on the talk page is a waste of time and energy for hard working contributors. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

When I started this section I was trying to delete a paragraph sourced under this. Afterwards I was referring to false accusations such as this one.I am not denying that Russian military crossed into Ukraine but stating that 400 people with artillery and tanks did is complete nonsense.I am trying to say that the majority of Ukrainian media is controled by people close to the Ukrainian government thus making it unreliable. I am sorry but I refuse to stand by and do nothing as Wikipedia is turned into a second Stormfront. Catlemur (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which particular "Stormfront" would you be referring to, ? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A nationalist website .Catlemur (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suspected as much. Kindly try to refrain from melodramatics on the talk page. I agree that this timeline is in need of a careful clean up, but it's littered with information from the yellow press on both sides, so there's also an abundance of sources like ITAR-TASS, RIA, etc. which I haven't eliminated but, as with the Ukrainian government biased sources, are not being presented with qualifiers discussed over the months on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It's distinctly lacking in qualifiers agreed on such as "according to", etc.
 * In case you are unfamiliar with the discussions at the RS/N, please see Russia Today; Ukrainian based sources coverage of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis; Is Voice of Russia article reliable for quotations attributed to PM?; RT news and Crimean status referendum, 2014... ad infinitum. There are a multitude of articles on the recent events in Ukraine and they're all being dragged to and fro by POV-ers. As a Wikipedia article, I consider that the first concern should be with not treating this article (or any related articles) as journalism, and not violating WP:RECENTISM. Any information not substantiated by independent sources must have an "according to", and there only where a representative of the government or military group is reported as being quoted. That does not automatically mean that it is appropriate to blank the sourced information but, rather, that independent sources are sought out to confirm the report. If there is a concern as to the source, it should be brought to the talk page and discussed here per WP:BRD.


 * Most importantly, assumptions as to other editor's neutrality are simply not acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not assumption it is statistic. 73.50.83.60 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? What does this "observation" (and I use the term loosely) actually mean? Are you able to comprehend what is being discussed? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * discussion? discussed ??? see:
 * learn to stay calm
 * try to refrain from melodramatics
 * read the War in Donbass article
 * But there is one fragment having future of discussion, when you give straight answer at 10:38 to a question at 10:36 .‎ 73.50.83.60 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ps. discussion is on wikipedia is a redirect from 3 May 2005
 * It is a shame how the truth is being lost behind all the arguing about trusted sourse. Russians lie. Ukrainians make stuff up (or say whatever their advisors/superiors/partners tell them to say). US/NATO says and shows whatever is convenient to show and say. Russian media say distinctively pro-insurgent things, ukrainian media say distinctive anti-russian things. Western media say distinctive pro-sanctions things. For me as an eye-witness it is marvelous that out of 3 lies those showing ukrainian and western POV is preferred because of "trusted sourse". This is propaganda "as is". I am not pretending to be neutral in my views on this conflict, but it is uncomfortable to read encyclopedia that describes something not objectively.89.233.128.158 (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced & biased?
DagosNavy del as 'Rm unsourced, biased statement' but Chechen volunteers involvement is is sourced by 19 sources and stable for long period. For the bias aka 'Ukrainian junta' it was direct quote and marked as such. I will rather say it was inconvenient fact and as such removed. Any sensible argument against putting it back? 73.50.83.60 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not use another Wikipedia article (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) using your own (ungrammatical) WP:WEASEL, WP:POV terminology. Citing a source in the correct context, including quotations marks, has nothing to do with your content addition: "Earlier Chechen warned to send thousands of volunters if Ukraine junta continiue punitive operation."


 * Pay attention to policy, particularly as I have already left warnings on your own talk page about using article talk pages as a forum. Do you have a sensible answer as to why you are acting as an SPA and engaging in tendentious editing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not use Wikipedia as source but wiki-linking to already existing article, a practice strongly encouraged here. Do you suggest coping some sources from there will constitute an appropriate editing? I do not think anybody need such redundant information. (For your question - not and not.) 73.50.83.60 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

ps. Is your point to fix the spelling or tense before putting it back? This is of course needed, one e and one d; paradoxically sometime so many words are needed to fix few characters.

what abput this text:

Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov threatened on 7 May that he would send tens of thousands of Chechen "volunteers" to southern and eastern Ukraine if the "junta" in Kiev continued its "punitive operations."[522]

UserGogo212121 Hello, Russia is not in support of pro Russian rebels. There is no Russians in Ukraine. Kiev is a spy. This region is not Russian troops in Donetsk order Luhansk

No, Azovsk was a captured by pro Russian rebels older volunteers; Abkhazian Uzbek, German, Chechen, French, Belarusian, Abkhazian, South Ossetian not is. This region is Russian troops.--91.134.65.79 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

respect abel source
"A Pskov newspaper reported that nearly an entire company of paratroopers from the 76th Guards Air Assault Division, stationed at the city of Pskov, Russia, was lost during combat in Ukraine.902 ."
 * so lets translate:


 * newspaper published decoded thus previously encrypted conversation of two surviving paratroopers < опубликовала расшифровку разговоров двух предположительно псковских десантников
 * they they are all dead < погибли почти все солдаты
 * the website is now not available < Сейчас сайт газеты не доступен
 * but material is in US server cashes whose operator usggov "keeps Kahle" gaged from 2008
 * and in the archive is discussion of voice1 to voice2, one voice speak somber so the text is boldfaced:
 * our nation is genocided and why we have be gaged about it, why!? < Наш народ гибнет, а мы об этом молчим. Почему,

Ps You keep such RS stuff but delete my Voice of America source. Harping me block as Irina Harpy resorted personaly is only solution in your propaganda case.
 * the secret graves, as in voice1 to voice2 talk, are pictured as (satellite? since b&w:) wrenches on 3 graves but each picture is duplicated two times in a way so lame nobody can doubt.
 * even so such 'respectable' source is misquoted since one voice output 'only ten of us survived'< десять нас осталось в живых.
 * You may check how big, but rota for centuries was a group up to 10 soldiers. The article title is gibeli_roty_desantnikov 73.50.83.60 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Maps
Have inserted into Estonian counterpart links to official maps in English (like this onemap); as of now, the last one is dated 3 September; when they started, don't know. — Pietadè (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Information?
"and Vityaz surface-to-air missile systems" The "Vityaz" system is not in active service or ready for production.... why are 50% of the "sources" bullshit in this article? Someone should do a sanity check on all informations in this article... 87.139.158.129 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no independent source
All sources are pro west or pro east... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.83.211 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a time tested standard of WP:RSWikidgood (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Trusted Source?
Not that I wish to start a new holy war that is already present in all other war-in-the-Ukraine articles, but why only Ukraine yellow press is being cited? It is like reading ukraine press and not Wikipedia now. The given information is either neutral but unrelated to topic or very much similar to Ukraine government opinion/position/propaganda. God save it, I have even seen citing of Tymchuk's "Information Resistance" (sprotyv.info), which is 1000% propaganda unit and not even trying to be neutral and unbiased. Seeing that the article is obviously under Ukrainian scope and not under Russian i'm not expecting to see citing of Russian sources, which are like no less biased, but some more or less adequate and neutral info would be great. Thank you! 89.233.128.158 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Trusted as agent trust overriding agency, but untrusted to selfcontained contiusneses. Why? Becouse Wikipedia is a propaganda organ sponsored by the same (oiz< group organizing the Victoria fu*k up EU Nulan armed coupe, aka revolution. 108.174.163.124 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Both IP users, please be civil.--Mishae (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Badly needed split
The article is too long to read and edit adequately. I think it should be split in two lists, one with the timeline from April to July and the other from August to December. Is there anybody with the technical skills to perform it without losing the edit history? Thanks in advance.--Darius (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure that it couldn't do with a bit of pruning. There is still very little in the way of WP:RS for much of the detail... and it's fairly excessive in its detail. I really would prefer to make certain that it is tightly written and well sourced before anything more is done with it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those issues can be deferred to a more convenient time. The priority right now is readability, and the citation template is collapsed. I will split the page per WP:BOLD. The page is protected for some reason, so I cannot rename the article by myself, so I will made the proper request.--Darius (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iryna. I oppose a split at this time. The first thing we need to do is trim this one, as there is a lot of superfluous information. Only then can we worry about a split. I'd wait until the event is "over" before we start trimming, though if we can have a concerted effort as such, that'd be good. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I Support a split, if you are willing to prune it then please do so if not then we need to split the article. The timeline is being added to everyday and is becoming harder and harder to read. Don't just say it needs pruning and walk away here because the problem will just get bigger if ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a split at this time will help us. It will result in the balkanisation of content, leaving older stuff to be abandoned forever and never cleaned-up. I've seen it happen before. I agree that the article is very long, but this can be remedied by removing un-necessary information and actually taking the time to clean it up. Transferring off content that isn't up to par into a closet is not going to fix the problem. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then take your words and clean it up, I have seen these things too it is a common response "Oh it just needs a trim" Months later... nothing. For now the best solution is to make the split, when the war ends and we have a huge timeline on one page who is to say that it wont be abandoned as well and never cleaned up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that two or three shortened articles are less mentally straining than one huge one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to trim it right now, no. That doesn't mean that this is the right time to split it. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then when is the right time? When someone comes along and cleans up the time-line? How long do you propose we wait? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to wait until the war is properly over. If you think it is so urgent, what exactly is the structure you'd propose for the split articles? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know how long this war is going to last, my proposal is as follows:
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (April-June, 2014)
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (July-September, 2014)
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (October, 2014 - Present)


 * Three articles allow for a smooth read-through and articles that can be more easily managed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The format on those is a bit off. I'd suggest:
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (April–June 2014)
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2014)
 * Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2014–present)
 * I'm fine with such a distribution. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, Thank you for your understanding. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for chiming in so late into the piece. There's a lot of 'stuff' happening right across Wikipedia at the moment. Okay, I could accept this structure as a short term measure with a view to re-merging if more RS is not found, and the many instances of WP:BIASED one-off source content is either attributed or removed. The whole thing is still rife with obscure Ukrainian and Russian sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User: Alasdair. I've been reading this page for a while, and agree the structure is pretty long. But the link now redirects to a very general page on the war in Ukraine, rather than to this more logical split that has been carried out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(October_2014%E2%80%93present)

As you can tell already I have no experience working with wikipedia, so if anyone can make sense of the bureaucratic nightmare that I see, then please could you make these changes? Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.67.191.124 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the dab page, because I don't think WP:DABCONCEPT applies, and also because I believe the redirect was very poorly devised. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This now appears to be a list or an index of related articles, rather than an ambiguous collection of unrelated articles sharing the same title. I would therefore propose removing the "disambiguation" tag and replacing with a "List of" category" or "SIA" tag, in order to make clear that the hundreds of incoming links do not need to be tagged as errors. bd2412  T 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like an adequate way forward. Thank you for your co-operation. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have implemented the fix. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It might still be useful to offer a summary of key events covered in each of the three timelines split out, so that a reader coming to see about a particular event (like the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) will know which timeline to look in to read about that in the context of the timeline. bd2412 T 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

no evidence to back up timeline
There is no evidence of NAF using 152 mm artillery as claimed in the timeline sources. If that were so, there wouldn't be so few casualties as reported in the timeline sources. I've personally seen what 152 mm shells can do.

104.219.200.41 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're challenging the sourcing for a specific article, please take it to the talk page of the correct timeline article. This is merely a disambiguation page for a number of articles broken up chronologically. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

reporting is too biased
There is only daily reports by NSDC. We need to include daily reports by the rebels.

These can be found at https://www.facebook.com/TruthfromUkraine

207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Added to that, Wikipedia is not a comprehensive journal of daily events, just notable events. You're welcome to keep consulting whatever blogs, forums, Facebook diaries you wish: just don't bring them here. This is an encyclopaedic source, not whatever information it takes your fancy to add. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to ask what the value of posting every single daily report by the Ukrainian ATO is, I thought wiki was about the notable events not the constant shoveling of ATO reports. Yes there's constant firefights and shelling, but do we really need daily reports to know that? They add nothing of real value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B05F:FFFF:0:0:5679:501D (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Basurin reported Ukrainian army broke the ceasefire 60 times yesterday. How is that not relevant information? I quote:

"10th of April, 2015. Donetsk People's Republic, Novorossiya.

Ukrainian army has violated the ceasefire regime 60 times over the past 24 hours, the DPR Defense Ministry told the Donetsk News Agency.

“We registered 60 truce violations by Ukrainian forces, including one violation with artillery, 4 - with tank guns, 5 - with APCs and IFVs, 6 - with anti-tank guided missiles, 3 - with anti-aircraft guns. We also recorded 34 mortar attacks and 7 small arms fire. The attacks were mounted on the settlements of Spartak, Zhabichevo, Novomaryevka, Veseloye. Gorlovka and Donetsk airport were subjected to the most intensive shelling. As a result of shelling, one DPR fighter was killed,” – the DPR Ministry said. It added that the DPR army didn’t fall for Kiev’s provocations and didn’t open return fire on Ukrainian army’s positions."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and Basurin's claim has been cross-checked for verifiability against which reliable sources? DAN? I'm not aware of its qualifying as being a WP:BIASED source from which WP:INLINE attribution would be considered acceptable for quoting Basurin. Again, you're welcome to use whatever sources you want to believe according to your personal POV, but it is not encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And how are NSDC's reports not lies? Every day they report their soldiers getting shelled by heavy artillery and don't suffer any casualties. In my opinion, both sides are lying about their casualty numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your WP:POV is showing. Before changing your comment, it read as "And how are Ukraine's sources not lies?" Wikipedia's article content does not revolve around personal opinions. You've pointed to Facebook and a biased local news outlet. Neither are reliable sources. Your point is made, and the discussion over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Usefullness
Although I follow this conflict, I find this series to be much too detailed, and thus of little use. A single "timeline" article would do. Zezen (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Further splits
I've split the April - September 2018 sections into separate monthly articles. The rest should be split similarly, to reduce page size. Please also consider creating future articles (though hopefully there wont be many) one per month. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that I've further split the October, November and December sections into separate monthly articles. The original article was far too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you're concerned about how we deal with events that happen on the last day of a month and extent to the first day of the next month, we can talk about that here and fix those potential issues. That's not a good reason to reverse the splits though, and that same problem exists for articles which would contain three months as well. Otherwise the article is the second largest article of English Wikipedia. We've been many of these before so it's hardly controversial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrote on your talk page; these timeline pages have been organised into 4 quarters since the beginning and do not exceed the time limit (2,098,175&#160;bytes), and writing these article the way we do (mainly 2 of us) is much less time consuming; nobody says these cannot be reorganised at some later date, "armed" with some retrospective, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They very much exceed the 100,000 bytes WP:SIZERULE. The two million bytes you are referring to is the maximum that Wikipedia pages can technically hold, not guidelines of how large an article can and should be. It does not take any more time to write these events in monthly articles rather than quarterly articles, and I am actually here to help so it's actually faster than otherwise. If writing these articles is too time consuming for you, then you don't have to write them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion from User talk:Onetwothreeip
Hope that you can understand that splitting these articles the way U do, "kills" all the references that cover both the last day of the previous month and the first day of this month (e.g., data on 31 Dec will be published today);

in case of 12 articles there are 24 last and first days, where all the links must be corrected;

plus, in case of 12 articles instead of 4 one should add all these links (populated places, weaponry, etc.,) in 12 articles, not in 4, etc.—Pietadè (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Pietadè I'm not entirely sure what you mean, can you expand on that? If I am understanding you, then we can just have the same references on both articles, i.e. the same reference can be used for October 31 and November 1, even if they are on different articles. Again, it would otherwise be the second largest Wikipedia article, so this splitting is important. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip The war itself has entered into the 5th year of existence, Oct–Dec has had total 13,245 pageviews so far; and, not only the last/first day of every month and their respective references, but there are other items in the articles to be linked too (like Donetsk is now linked ~4 times, after splitting there should be at least 12 of this link); plus, quite more time consuming would be to write 12 articles instead of 4...—Pietadè (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. It is three times the articles but they are one third the size. The whole point is that the articles are smaller when there are more of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These 3 articles would be summa summarum bigger in size than 1 article that covers 3 months (e.g., instead of linking 1–2 times to, say, DPR, UNIAN, RFE/RL, Minsk, etc., etc., all the localities/locations, weapons, Ukraine, et cetera, in 51 articles (your suggestion), instead of 19/20, by now), plus, I have thought on making a table (like this), years either vertically or horizontally (in this article), though, haven't asked DagosNavy yet.—Pietadè (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Three individual articles would only be bigger than one big article because of three times the categories and external links, and I am very willing to handle that. Even if I wasn't the burden of slightly more work cannot get in the way of improving the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion from User talk:Pietade
Hi mate, and Happy New Year, may Peace finally prevail and our work come to a close! I think Onetwothreeip proposal about one-month timelines, even with the problems you have described on his talk page could be the best way to avoid further questionings like the ones we have suffered in the past (alleged WP:NEWS, unreliable sources and fundamentally pages' size). The broken syntax of month's end citations or the overpopulation of categories are items we can deal with. Let me know your opinion, Cheers!.Darius (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, and Happy New Year to You too! Currently there are 20 quarters, that is 58 months; and not only the connection between months, but, You see, in a 4-quarter version one has to link e.g., LPR 4 times, at least, in a 12-month version this makes at least 12×LPRs, and all the other linkable articles. Besides that, at least some of these 4-quarter versions are linked to other Wikipedias 4-quarter “sisters” (see the table in the Estonian version of the War in Donbass on Estonian page, clicking on entries opens an Estonian version, where You can see language links):

Let us think a little more; by the way, Onetwothreeip has split the articles, but hasn't bothered to make new ones Wikiarticles (not only the ref links in the end/beginning), but an article has to have "inlinks" (DPR, Pisky, mortars, BMPs, etc., etc.) too, at least so I have heard ;--)—Pietadè (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I've never heard of "DPR, Pisky, mortars, BMPs". When I split the articles, the references were all transferred into the new articles, as well as the external links, categories and templates. What does it even mean that when I split the articles I didn't make new ones "Wikiarticles"? Splitting articles creates new articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In a 3-month article you can link DPR, Pisky, or what ever only in the beginning or in the beginning and in the end (articles in Wikis have inside links, and if you make 3 from 1 you have to link the articles that were otherwise linked in a 3-month version once); or, there is an anchored link to ATO ("anti-terror operation"), that is pretty often linked from other articles... (in this case you have to change all the links to correct ones), etc.—Pietadè (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, say you have one artist with 100 works, if you make a list of these works, you'll link the artist, the school he/she attended, teacher(s), etc., only once, if you'll make one article per every work, you'll have to make 100 links.—Pietadè (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We can have those links in the new articles too, it's no problem. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Later on, when pro-Russian media started counting and publishing every shell, the ref links in 3-months articles were customised, to match the ref limit per article; these should be made back too, links to 3-months' timelines in other language Wikis, checking typos (e.g., Ukrainian и written incorrectly)... as for me, I do not possess that much free time; and your statement: "Given that DagosNavy and Pigsonthewing agree with me" — have not had the opportunity to read that; thus calling "the behaviour of yours disruptive, at least".—Pietadè (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Besides that, every article (and Talk page) has history, deleting history is simply deleting (though, sometimes "handy" — made a infobox template for one animal, still in use in 100+ articles, thanks to illiterate "split" actions of someone, I'm not (formally) the creator of this infobox template, and no one has formal reason to bite me), and deleting it is.—Pietadè (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not deleted anything, and I have certainly not deleted the histories. The edit summaries for the new articles make it very clear that they are split from a previous article, and you obviously are aware of that. It's not even possible for me to delete histories, that's something only an administrator can do. This is getting absurd, the consensus is for splitting these articles into months. Your reasons against them are completely incoherent, you're acting as if the new articles are much more flawed than the articles they were split from. We should move these discussions to the index page for the timelines at Timeline of war in Donbass. Pinging and . Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

organize by year?
the timeline can be organized into 2014, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.167.217 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)