Template talk:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War

Not appropriate
A campaign box isn't appropriate for this conflict, which isn't really a military one in the conventional sense. Please convert it to a sidebar, or I will nominate it for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can remove Odessa from the box because I agree there's nothing militaristic about it yet. So instead of threatening to prematurely nominate everything created on Ukraine's events for deletion, try to work on it. I will not convert it to a sidebar because this is certainly an armed conflict and tonnes of sources call it an insurgency. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an insurgency in Donetsk. There is no insurgency elsewhere, at yet. Lumping it all together as a 'military campaign' is misleading to the reader, and promotes various POVs. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A more appropriate thread to discuss that can be found here. Campaignboxes can include raids, operations, massacres as well as clashes with armed elements and they don't necessarily involve a country's national armed forces. As for what you believe it promotes, I can simply say that we're not obliged to give any kind of consideration to POV pushers from either side of the events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Campaignboxes do not include just events of a military nature. Like you said, they also include massacres as well as clashes between armed elements and they don't necessarily involve a country's armed force. Looking at these two categories, the Odessa clashes qualify to be in the campaignbox, in the sense that bullets were flying yesterday in Odessa (armed clash) and 38 people were burned alive in that building (massacre). Also, you should look at the Syrian civil war campaignbox which includes links to individual protests/massacres that occurred there in 2011, where you had demonstrations that turned violent and led to dozens of deaths. This is similar to that. So, the link to the Odessa clashes, considering how notable it is at this point within the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, should be put in the campaignbox. EkoGraf (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources calling this a massacre? Because in that case I might support its inclusion. If not, I will have to agree with RGloucester on this one, because protests can turn violent sometimes and become riots, but in most cases it's usually the "civil" kind that doesn't make it to a campaignbox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No sources have described it as a 'massacre'. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:EkoGraf is a controversial user who devotes their time on Wikipedia to inserting hysterical and polemical statements into articles using dubious sources, and creating bias spin-off articles or templates that push a Kremlinist POV. So expect a link to a Russia Today article describing the events as a massacre any second now.


 * We don't tolerate personal attacks here. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't calling it a massacre, I was making a comparison to other articles. And since when did I become a controversial and hysterical Kremlinist POV pusher when I started editing the Ukrainian-related articles only this morning? I have devoted all of my time on Wikipedia for the last three years to the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's happening? At this point its not understandable to not include the Odessa events in the box considering how notable the events were. Like Fitzcarmalan says, campaignboxes don't include just military engagements. EkoGraf (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A campaignbox, by definition, only includes events within a military campaign, or events that pertain to a military campaign. Odessa is neither. If this were a normal sidebar, it could be included. However, it is not. It is a campaignbox. To include Odessa is misleading. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A campaignbox, by definition, only includes events within a military campaign, or events that pertain to a military campaign. Not true. For examples look at the 2001 Afghan war campaignbox which includes a link to the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, than we got the Syrian civil war campaignbox which includes links to articles about the 2011 protests and clashes. Or the Libyan civil war campaignbox which includes links to Libya's initial protests in 2011. I can go on. That alone gives a basis for including Odessa in the campaignbox. But if that weren't enough, I would remind you that both sides during the clashes used live fire-arms and fire-bombs, in a civil war-like situation (admitted by the Interior Minister) that we have in Ukraine that makes the Odessa event military in nature, albeit a small one. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Those events pertained to a military campaign. These do not. You are blowing it out of proportion. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ????? In what way are the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests a military campaign? Or, I have another example for you, in what way are the Black July riots, that are included in the Sri Lankan civil war campaignbox, a military campaign? EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They pertained to a military campaign, meaning that they were RELATED. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What military campaign??? They were riots instigated and conducted by civilians, just like Odessa. If you are referring when saying military campaign to the conflicts/wars themselves than I have to remind you that the Odessa event is part of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and a highly notable one at that, that makes the events pertained and RELATED to the unrest. Not to mention the NAME of this box is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. So where is the logic to exclude from the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine box the most notable of its events? EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE. The fact that events like the Quran burning protests exist in campaignboxes doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate. I myself believe it should be removed from there as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is not a guideline that strictly absolves your resistance to the introduction of this highly notable event based on your personal POV. WP:OSE is mostly related to article creation or deletion. As for content inclusion or exclusion (as is the case here), I would point you to the following stated in WP:OSE - When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Also, I would refer you to section Precedent in usage, where previous precedents are looked at for coherency. And they conclude with While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. Which means you calling up WP:OSE is a double-edged sword if there is consistency with other established templates (Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria). EkoGraf (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing militaristic about the Quran burning protests among different similar cases all over Wikipedia. And please note that it is listed under a section called "Other" in Template:Campaignbox Afghan War. Can you provide sources portraying the events in Odessa as armed riots, not civil ones? Maybe it will be reconsidered in that case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With both sides using pistols during the fighting I would say yes this constitutes as an armed riot. Source for armed pro-Russians, source for armed pro-Ukrainians (check 07:05 min). If this still isn't enough, would you than compromise for Odessa being separated in the box with the term Other like in the case of Afghanistan? EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just sayin, but this is somewhat a military conflict. There have been armed clashes, gun battles, police station seizures, and other armed incidents. It might not be fully a military conflict but there have been incidents. —Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with POV. The conflict in Odessa was not a military conflict. It was a conflict between civilians. There was no military campaign. It was a civil conflict. If people want a link to Odessa, they can go to Template:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which will direct them there. We already have a template for that very purpose, and it predates this one. This one is a MILITARY CAMPAIGNBOX for MILITARY CAMPAIGNS. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a civil conflict. You just proved my point. What is the current unrest in the rest of Ukraine if not a civil conflict aka civil war? The head of the Ukrainian anti-terrorist center just yesterday called it a civil war. Not to mention that those involved in the Odessa clashes included militants from the Right Sector and militants from the pro-Russian camp, not just civilians/regular protesters, and as sources that I provided show both sides were ARMED and engaged in gun fights. Problem here is that you regard a military conflict only when two military armed forces clash, well if this were a regular war between two countries that would be ok, but this is not that kind of war, its a civil conflict/war with Ukrainian vs Ukrainian. EkoGraf (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)w
 * It isn't defined by reliable sources as a civil war, yet. That would be WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a full-fledged civil war ether, but that's not the topic. My point is, and I repeat, military campaignboxes are not reserved for military campaigns exclusively. The example of the Afghan protests and the Black July riots (which were civilians conflicts in your terms) being in its respective conflicts campaignboxes because they were related and notable presents a consistency which Wikipedia requires from us. If it will make you feel better, we can compromise by separating Odessa in the campaignbox and marking the other events in the box as military operations while Odessa under civilian unrest or some-such. EkoGraf (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are reserved for events that pertain to a military campaign, even if the events are not military. However, the events in Odessa do not pertain. If you want to clarify that it was 'Unrelated civil unrest', that's fine. But do not connect Odessa to the military campaign in Donetsk. They are no where near each other, and have nothing to do with each other. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your logic would be ok if this campaign box was related to the military operations in Donetsk ONLY. But you seem to have completely forgotten THAT is not the case. This campaignbox is not called Military campaign in Donetsk, its called 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. We have already included the Crimean invasion which has nothing to do with the events in Donetsk but is related to the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. In the same way, the Odessa clashes have nothing to do with the Crimean invasion or the Donetsk operations but is related to the overall 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which is in fact the name of this campaignbox. If we were to follow your logic, than we should remove the Crimean links as well, don't we? But back to the point, your argument is invalid since this box is not reserved exclusively for Donetsk, but for all armed clashes of the overall unrest in Ukraine. We separated the Crimean events in the box from the Donetsk events with brackets because they are two different fronts/areas of events of the same conflict, as such, Odessa would be on its own in the box as a separate area of events from Donetsk and the Crimea. EkoGraf (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are being dense. This is a CAMPAIGN BOX. An "ARMED CLASH" can be ENACTED by CIVILIANS. That is not a "MILITARY CAMPAIGN", or a "MILITARY CONFLICT". The only MILITARY CONFLICTS in Ukraine have occurred in DONETSK and CRIMEA. There is no ODESSA PEOPLE'S ARMY, unlike the DONBASS PEOPLE'S ARMY. As far as we know, there are no PARAMILITARY INSURGENT GROUPS operating in ODESSA. Nor is the UKRAINIAN ARMY operating in ODESSA. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm being dense? Let's look at the facts.

1. You said events of a military nature ONLY are for campaignboxes. When I pointed out that other campaignboxes included civilian unrest as well you called on WP: Otherstuffexists. 2. When I pointed out that WP: Otherstuffexists is not exclusively for disregarding other established templates and in fact calls for consistency with other established articles, the question of whether the rioters were armed or not was called up. 3. When I presented sources confirming BOTH sides used weapons you disregarded this also and claimed this box is only for events related to the Donetsk operations. 4. When I pointed out this box is for ALL events related to the overall pro-Russian unrest and stated the Odessa clashes would be separate from the Crimea and Donetsk events in the box (even attempting a compromise by proposing to note what are military operations and what are civil unrest events), you presented an opinion that if there is no military involved its not a battle, even though we are having a civil war-like situation where civilian armed groups combat eachother. In essence you closed the loop and came back to your original argument. To conclude... Based on the consistency with other conflict boxes riots related to the conflict in question ARE included in the campaignboxes. Fitzcarmalan requested sources that confirm the rioters were armed and that it was in fact an armed riot, in compliance sources were provided. And this event is a highly notable event that is part of the overall Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which this campaignbox is named after and is in existence for events related to the unrest. I will wait one more day to see what arguments you come up with but as I have seen you disregard any attempt at compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to pay more attention. You are responding to other people's commentary about WP:Otherstuffexists. Other people's stuff about conflict being 'armed'. I never questioned that it was armed, and I don't care about 'other stuff'. What I care about is implying that the Odessa incident was part of or related to a military campaign. It wasn't. It is highly notable. That's why it is in the long existing Template:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. That doesn't specify 'campaignbox'. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And you don't seem to understand that campaignboxes on Wikipedia include civil riots/protests as well, or are simply ignoring the fact. And including Odessa in the box does not imply it is related to a military campaign, it imply's its related to the overall event per which the box is titled and to which it links to, THAT is the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. It would imply it was part of a military campaign if it had been in the brackets of the Donetsk events, but it isn't. And saying things like that you don't care how its done elsewhere shows a disregard for Wikipedia consistency based on a personal POV. EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it can only go in if it is clearly delineated as not being part of any military campaign. For example, with a header like "Other related incidents". The smartest thing to do, however, would be to convert it into a normal sidebar. If you haven't noticed, '2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine' is not a military campaign. I have no personal POV. Either something is a military campaign, or it isn't. Wikipedia isn't based on precedent, or consistency. Read the essay.  RGloucester  — ☎ 06:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? Like I said, it can only go in if it is clearly delineated as not being part of any military campaign. For example, with a header like "Other related incidents". If I remember correctly I proposed the same thing a full two days ago. And I have been proposing it all along. We put it in and separate it under a separate header that is titled with whatever you like (I'm fine with the title you just said). P.S. The essey says While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. EkoGraf (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've said that I'd repeatedly support using a heading. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? You shot down that idea when I proposed it two days ago. I was never proposing that it be simply lumped in beside Crimea and Donetsk since those two ARE military fronts, while Odessa is the civilian unrest front......Hmmm, seems we had a major breakdown in communications. 0.0 EkoGraf (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See this diff. I said clarify. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. :P Although I never said Odessa was connected to Donetsk, instead saying the two are connected to the overall unrest. But nevermind, case resolved. EkoGraf (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what is going on. Isn't there an infobox that is a civil conflict?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The box created for use in the article is not titled campaign, theater or something else. Its titled 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The use of Campaignbox in the page title is merely for template coding purposes. I don't see what the controversy is here. The template type is merely called campaign box, not the actual title of the specific navbox created here. Its a useful format and helps readers navigate the various incidents that have occured during the conflict. The Syrian Civil War campaignbox includes various riots and protests that occured before the conflict turned into a war, i don't see why that shouldn't also be the case here. Note that Template:Campaignbox_Actions_in_New_England_during_the_American_Civil_War also contains riots and other notable events that occured in the north during the civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, per Xavier here, I am convinced that it is unnecessary to separate Odessa from the other events because EkoGraf already provided sources (for which i'm thankful) highlighting the significance of the armed element relative to the protests and I believe it doesn't matter anymore. Also, there is a number of non-Russian partisan sources calling the events a 'massacre', such as The Telegraph, Prague Post, The Daily Beast, Miami Herald, Paris Match (a leading French magazine) and Daily Mail among others. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was a "massacre" or not. What matters is how the conflict arose. It arose through civil protest, and escalated into rioting. It was not a military operation. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it was a massacre or not does matter because it fills the criterion for its inclusion. The pro-Kiev and football ultras demonstration appears to be just a coinciding event taking place at the same time. Campaignboxes are not just limited to 'military operations' and can even include miscellaneous events such as hostage situations. And like Xavier said earlier, the word is just used for coding purposes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The implications of such a misuse of language is incredibly dangerous. We are an encyclopaedia, and we can't afford to convey disinformation.
 * Like I said, you can make this a sidebar, and I won't care. I will not tolerate the misuse of the word "campaign".  RGloucester  — ☎ 19:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to and I feel we are making a big deal out of nothing. I removed Odessa in the beginning so a consensus could be reached, and it was eventually agreed to have it under a different section. But now the only thing stopping it from being listed with the other events is the word "campaign". You seem to believe that there was only one campaign in the whole events while there are 3 different ones: the Russian military campaign in Crimea, the insurgents' campaign and the Ukrainian government's counter-insurgency campaign. The May 2 clashes were just part of the insurgents' wider movement in Odessa, because the trade union building wasn't the only one occupied there. I myself don't and will not object to the current compromise, but I have to say that the reasoning of not including Odessa with the other events is, no offense, weak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's utter sloblock, my friend. There are no insurgents in Odessa, no insurgency whatsoever. No buildings have been occupied in Odessa Oblast. Zero. None. Nil. The Trade Unions House was the first and only building to be "occupied", and that's only because the anti-government protesters were forced into it by the pro-government protesters. Please don't makeup nonsense on the spot. Odessa remained calm until 2 May, and has been calm since. No insurgents, no army, no nothing. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that in Odessa's case, they are called "militants"   or "rebels"   not insurgents, who "stormed" (not occupied) a police station there. And there are government forces and pro-government militants there to halt a feared westward spread of rebellion. And if things look quiet there for the moment, it is because of this. Also, the fact that a number of sources call it a massacre must be taken into account. Let me add a few more: The Independent The Economist Bloomberg. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That police station wasn't occupied. They got their people out, and left. It doesn't matter if they are militants (and those who stormed the police station were hardly militants), and there are plenty of other sources that will call them a variety of other colourful terms. There are "self-defence" groups on the pro-Ukrainian side there, setting up checkpoints, no different than during the Euromaidan, which notably, doesn't have a campaignbox. There is no insurgency. There has been no conflict, other than the 2 May clashes. Calling it a "massacre" is loaded with POV, and many sources dispute that. Regardless, "massacres" can take place without being part of a military campaign. You are blowing this out-of-proportion to the highest degree. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, see the OSCE's daily report for yesterday. Look at the Odessa section. I've been following these since they started, and been working on the articles as such. Odessa has been calm. Odessa is calm. See this quote from yesterday's report!


 * STABLE! PEACEFUL! This has nothing in common with what one will find in either the Luhansk or Donetsk sections. I wonder why? RGloucester  — ☎ 04:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say the following. I agree with Fitzcarmalan and I agree with Xavier, but since you were obviously not going to stop fighting over this RGloucester I dropped the issue for the sake of compromise. But like Fitz says, your reasoning on the issue really is weak. Case closed. EkoGraf (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can call it "weak" all you like. But you can't change the definition of the word "campaign" to suit your personal viewpoint. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for good measure, in my weakness, I will provide you the OED definition of "campaign":


 * Take up my "weakness" with the English language, not with me. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

When did I ever call it a massacre? I was just hinting the fact that the event is being called so and that it should not be ruled out, so please don't put words in my mouth. And again, it doesn't have to be part of a military campaign to be in a campaignbox because this can't be compared to the Euromaidan where events like the 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, for example, aren't even close to being referred to as being part of a wider armed conflict, unlike this one. Per a number of relevant discussions on Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts, it was agreed that once a significant part of a conflict is armed, the whole thing becomes an armed conflict. A real case that you should 'not tolerate' is Template:Campaignbox Bahraini uprising, but here you're making a big deal out of something minor. As for your perception that i'm "blowing this out-of-proportion", can you please elaborate how is this considered a storm in a teacup? I already said that i'm not opposed to the current compromise but was just pointing out that it was not necessary to separate things, especially when they are related like that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said you called it a massacre. Don't put words in MY mouth. Euromaidan was just as armed as the clashes in Odessa. Just as armed. There were arms, there were clashes. What's more, the government was involved. In fact, it is perhaps much more of an "armed" conflict than this little clash. This one has NOT been referred to as part of the military campaign and insurgency in Donetsk, which are only one specific part of the overall unrest. It has been referred to as part of the UNREST overall, which includes non-military and non-militant actions. I have no interest in Arabs, so I don't edit in Arab history. I edit in European history, because I am interested in European history. Do not fling other stuff upon me. I will focus my attentions here. Consensus on Wikipedia talk pages does not dictate the English language. One cannot change the meaning of the word campaign, which I have so graciously provided. Misleading the public at large with the word "campaign" cannot be tolerated. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how the word campaign is mentioned anywhere in the template. Like XavierGreen said, "Campaignbox" is simply part of title formats that are used merely for coding purposes to be easily searched for. If it bothers you so much, you can go make a move request in Template talk:Campaignbox and I might support. But we can't say that the clashes don't merit a place in the box since both sides included armed groups and since the events are part of the overall unrest, like you said, which is now considered an armed conflict on Wikipedia due to the significance of the armed element involved. The thing now is why separate them by "Other" when the events are strongly connected like this? But now that a different consensus was reached that hopefully both sides agree with, I also announce that i'm dropping the case like EkoGraf and I really don't want to waste my energy on this anymore. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just like to also note, that when this particular campaign box is displayed on a page the word campaign does not even appear at all. Note below. I would like RGloucester to show me where the world campaign is displayed in the navbox at all. PS, you cant because it isnt there!XavierGreen (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the code, which is horrid enough. It lumps it together with conflicts it has nothing in common with, and has horrid implications. As I said, make a normal sidebar out of this, with Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists, and I won't care. If it was a sidebar, you could put whatever you like in it. This box is meant for military campaigns, and says so in the title of the box itself. Furthermore, the military conflict infobox includes a special parameter for campaignboxes, implying that it is meant for military conflicts. Odessa was not a military conflict, nor is the unrest overall a "military conflict". It is not an armed conflict, except in Donetsk. If you want to call this an armed conflict, I ask you to do the same for Euromaidan. However, that would equally misleading, because it does not capture the full picture of events. I will not tolerate the proliferation of misinformation in code or in text. So, if you'd like to have a sidebar with everything in it, like the Russo-Georgian war one, or the Crimean crisis one, fine. But I shan't tolerate a campaignbox. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic
EkoGraf, can you please explain how the Donetsk PR is considered an 'event' to be listed here? We don't need to mark the geographical locations of events in a campaignbox, especially when they are disputed like this one. Why add it instead of Donetsk Oblast or Donbass? And vice versa.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that he means that we only have one article for the Donetsk insurgency, and that that article is the Republic article. I made a split proposal, but it failed. Hence, Donetsk-related events are compiled at the Republic article. It includes minor skirmishes in towns that are not notable enough for their own article. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally we don't include geographical locations unless it is highly necessary in case there are multiple items that need to be grouped to avoid confusion. And like I said, the people's republic is disputed, so a better solution would be to simply say "Donetsk", but again, if needed. We can also link "Others" in the brackets to Donetsk People's Republic if we want to let the readers know more about the various clashes that are not mentioned here.
 * My proposal goes like this → Donetsk (Sloviansk - Kramatorsk - Mariupol - Others)
 * Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually the compromise wording I had already put in the previous day. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Glitch
Hey guys, is there a glitch in this template? I can't press the [Show] when the "conflict in Ukraine" blocks the former. Can ya fix this? Scarlet Marines (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't a glitch in this template. The only article it isn't working on is the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I'm trying to troubleshoot it now, as it appears that the main infobox on that article possibly has some incorrect parameters or corrupted syntax. Dancin' as fast as I can... Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Title
Can somebody please change the title to "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine"? Because right now this page's title contradicts the title of the main article. 221.181.104.11 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nickst messed with the redirect, so it is in the way. You will have to put this up for speedy move. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ There was no need to do anything except change a few of the parameters. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Current dispute over content
, could you and please bring your dispute to this talk page rather than using your personal talk pages. The content of this campaignbox is not WP:OWNed by you. Let other editors have their say as to what is appropriate and inappropriate. If you have personal opinions as to what belongs in the box, please let the rest of us know what and why (per policies and guidelines). Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, it was unnecessary to go there from the beginning. I just chose his talk page because I noticed that the last entry here was two months ago; and there is no ownership issue here (don't know why you brought that up). Yesterday I have boldly reorganized the items chronologically by moving the Russian intervention above the Donbass events and removed Novofedorivka since it looks far from being a direct military confrontation and because no such article exists about it anymore (was erroneous from the very beginning). I kept being reverted by Mondolkiri1 and after the second revert I went to his talk page, stressing that the template's items are organized chronologically (see the parameters section in Template:Campaignbox/doc → A chronological list of battles and operations in the campaign, linked as..); and I've explained to him that I did not place the Russian intervention article within Crimea's brackets and bolded it to maintain its separate status in the conflict because we apparently both agree that although the intervention started during the Crimean crisis it also contains material about the war in Donbass. I then restored the chronological version after failing to see any participation from Mondolkiri's side, but I was quickly reverted again, still insisting that "it would suggest that the Russian intervention only occurred in Crimea" which clearly ignores all the arguments and concerns that I've raised. There you go: the whole issue is here now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be to put the Russian military intervention either before the Crimean crisis or between the Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass, because puting it on the same line as the Crimean crisis would suggest, in my opinion, that the military intervention only happened in Crimea. I'll request other editors on this subject to express their opinions on this particular issue:          (the top editors of the pages concerning to this topic, according to pages' information) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for pinging other contributors to the articles involved, . It's essential to try to keep on track as it also needs to reflect the work being put in on restructuring the existing articles. Thanks, for your input here. I note that your specialism revolves around current conflicts but, as you haven't been involved to any noticeable extent in the articles, it's useful to get an uninvolved editor's opinion. Apologies, also, if you thought I was implying that it is you who have ownership issues. My intention was to suggest that it shouldn't come down to the two of you starting an edit war as to the content when it involves many other editors actively working on the articles on which the campaignbox is featured.


 * I echo Mondolkiri1's concerns about keeping Crimea as a visually separate issue in the overall treatment of the recent events, which is why having 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine featured in a linear manner alongside Crimea is misleading to the readers. The scope of the article in question is well outside of an easily identifiable start date. It is as much a contemporary events article as it is about introducing the subject with a brief examination of events beginning with the annexation of Crimea, so my preference would be that the campaignbox follow an intuitive structure with the overview article featured individually at the bottom of the box. Others may disagree, so let's see what the other opinions are on the structure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The intervention is relevant to both areas while not fully encompassing either of them. It should have its own line, bottom or top of that cell. I have nothing against chronological sequencing of the other incidents--Martin BerkaT&#124;C 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , yes, you are right. Russian intervention has not started with the open invasion of the Donets basin, but soon after the Euromaidan in February as the undercover forces known little green men. The whole 2014 Crimea crisis started with the slogan that Sevastopol - Russian city. Similar nationalistic revisionist policies were being pursued by Nazis in cases with Gdansk (Free City of Danzig) and Sudetes (Sudetenland) back in 1930s. Be aware that there were an extensive "pro-Russian" edition on Novorossiya and Donets basin to reflect their belonging to Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also off topic, please, note who is being labelled as Nazi in Russia today: Euromaidan, Baltic states, Orange Revolution, Rose Revolution and the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic supporters. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrey Makarevich was labelled as a member of the country's fifth column by the Russian media and collaborating with fascists after he sang to residents of Slovyansk upon liberating it from the pro-Russian militants, the so called Donetsk People's Republic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also off topic, I personally admire Petro Poroshenko's moderate views and his efforts to bring peace to Ukraine and to reconcile the different groups in the country. I don't sympathize with the Right Sector, Svoboda, Vladimir Putin and the several neo-fascist organizations in Russia. But that's not what we're discussing, anyway. Let's move on!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)



Honestly, I don't care whether the intervention article and Crimea are on the same line or not as long as they are both higlighted differently. This was my version you see on the right where I've addressed Mondolkiri1's concerns and I just find it ridiculous to put it after the Donbass events. Chronological sequencing should come above all other personal preferences. By the way, I still see no comment on Novofedorivka. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I requested User:Aleksandr Grigoryev's opinion again and I've asked him to just focus on the subject of this discussion, in any following edit here about this issue.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the topic on Russian intervention should heads any other topics about Russian invasion for any regions of Ukraine. Russian intervention has not started with the open invasion of the Donets basin, but soon after the Euromaidan in February as the undercover forces known little green men. The whole 2014 Crimea crisis started with the slogan that Sevastopol - Russian city. (Russian Flag Flies Over Ukraine's Naval Headquarters In Crimean Port Of Sevastopol, Ukraine: Sevastopol installs pro-Russian mayor as separatism fears grow. Moscow shows its influence in Crimean city amid fears the whole peninsula could seek deeper ties with Russia, Putin arrives in Crimea for Victory Day events as deadly Ukraine clashes erupt) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By what I understood, your opinion is that it should come at the top of all the other events? Or am I misunderstanding you? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, a good solution is that the crimea crisis stays on top and the donbass battles in the middle. However, the battle of novoazovsk and the invasion should go with the military intervention. --Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes, you understood me correctly. But, on the other hand, the way it is now (after the Crimea crisis) is fine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I also suggest you to look at the Soviet tactics in the Ukrainian–Soviet War where the Soviet forces were instigating unrest and then taking cities by force. It is in a way similar to what Russia was conducting in Moldova (War in Transnistria), Georgia (War in Abkhazia, and now in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it's at the bottom, below both the Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass. Watch at the right of this reply the template as it current is.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , nice. But as I said before, if the template is in time order then it is wrong. If it the article on intervention at the bottom for general purpose, then it is fine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then it might come at the top, instead of at the bottom. Because, coming in the same line as the Crimean crisis suggests that there was only a Russian military intervention in Crimea, that's what I've been trying to say, and the editors Iryna Harpy, Martin Berka and Arbutus the tree agreed with me that the Russian military intervention shall be placed in a separate line, either at the top, the bottom or in the middle (not in the same line of the Crimean crisis, since it has also occurred in Donbass, that's my point!). It's a simple question. Do you agree or disagree with that?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes, you are right. If you would like to arrange those topics in the order of time sequence. But how about to place it (intervention) as a a title, while the article on the unrest to place within the parenthesis along with Crimea and Donbass. Odessa's topic could also be viewed as part of the unrest which, of course, got way out of hand. In Ukraine some people believe that invasion started during the Euromaidan. Also, the Russian medal "For the Return of Crimea" implies that invasion started exactly during that timeframe. On February 21, 2014 a Russian militsiya/police chevron was found at Maidan (Russian insignia found on police officer’s uniform). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't think it would get so convoluted. My major concern is that Russian military intervention and Crimea don't sit on the same line (per other contributors) as does look a conflation of the subject areas. Bearing that in mind, Fitzcarmalan, I'd agree that it doesn't fit into the chronology, therefore have gone bold and separated it using a horizontal separator. It appears to be the simplest solution. I don't particularly care if it's at the bottom or the top, or whether it's given another title for the purposes of clarity. It certainly doesn't belong in the 'related' section, but it's really just a related article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was a very good and simple solution, Iryna! Thank you very much for that change!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it was just a thought. I've had some dealings with the Military History Project in the past, and I don't think there are any particular fast rules (which is why the parameters are open to interpretation) as, dependent on the complexity of the campaign, they leave a fair amount of scope for the presentation of the content. I'm happy for it to be tweaked for the sake of aesthetics, but I do think it needs to be made clear that it isn't a sequential article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Marupol rocket attack

 * I apologize for including a 'future' article in the template earlier, but I am curious who is going to work on it, I will join in and help when I can, possibly even later this weekend. News agencies are already reporting 27 dead and close to a 100 injured, so maybe the article should be something like '2015 Mariupol rocket attack' and possibly shift to '_____ Battle of Mariupol' (not sure which one this will be). In any case, it's a major development and I think it deserves an article, and on a side-note, so does the map of territorial control (the yellow and red one) for the war, it hasn't been updated since late November last year. Skycycle (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Every incident of shelling or rocketing is not notable. There has been constant shelling in Donetsk for months, and it isn't like we have an aritcle on every shelling that has ever taken place there. These articles that fail the WP:EVENT criteria must be stopped. Make an addition to the timeline, which is where stuff like this belongs. The red and yellow map wasn't updated because there were no changes until the Donetsk airport battle. We don't really have any good maps to show what's going on now, so we need to wait until we get RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can try creating an Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015) article. I can't guarantee it won't be deleted, as it is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A user has created a Mariupol offensive article: Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015). RGloucester  — ☎ 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Volnovakha checkpoint attack
Could you please add the newly created article to the campaign Box? Thanks --Babestress (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Babestress

Cursives for ongoing battles
Would it be a good idea to use cursives for ongoing battles, to distinguish them from the finished ones.--Andres arg (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC regarding separate sidebar or campaignbox for the 2022 invasion
See Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Phiarc (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Poor positioning
In Murder of Pentecostals in Sloviansk, which I'm copyediting for the GOCE, the campaignbox is in the middle of the page – not under Infobox civilian attack, where it belongs. I tried to embed it in the infobox, but it wouldn't render properly. There doesn't seem to be anything in the campaignbox code about positioning, so I don't know why it doesn't line up under the infobox as expected. Any help appreciated. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)