This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Who has ANY proof that Russia has reconquered Nestrya island at the mouth of the river on May. 13th 2024? That's not true... Ukraine is still there on June 1st according to ISW
@ DinoSoupCanada: I like the idea for the article, but the Kinburn Spit section (and potentially more, I didn't check) is literally word for word as far as I can tell, minus taking out the subparagraph headers and the blockquote. Without the headers, there are no breaks in the reading and it is clunky to read, but with them, it's just entirely copied material. Linking to the Ukrainian recapture attempts section in the Kinburn Spit article is definitely not 'further information', it's the exact same. I feel the section needs to be summarized to a basic overview of the skirmishes, because as of now, 3/4th of the article is just the Kinburn Spit section, which doesn't put due attention on the other also very important skirmishes happening alongside the Dnipro River. I wrote the entire 2022 Russian invasion section for the Kinburn Spit article some months back now, so I can help out with this if needed, but some rephrasing I feel is definitely needed. Johnson524 ( Talk!) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that in the long-term this article will be notable. However, we can easily tell these skirmishes are Ukrainian preparations for a southern counteroffensive. When the time comes and such counteroffensive takes place, I believe we should have this article merged into its article as a prelude section. 2022 Kherson counteroffensive#Prelude goes back several months and can serve as a model. Still, this article shouldn't be deleted for now, as making a page for an inexistent counteroffensive is nonsense. The status quo is favorable now, though I am not sure about it in the future. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The article alternates between the Russian and Ukrainian names for the river. We need to settle on one. Stara Marusya ( talk) 08:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
On April 22nd, the ISW confirmed that the northern bank of the Konka river fell the previous night. This means the northern outskirts of Oleshky are under Ukrainian control. This needs to be put on it’s own section, as it’s too notable to call an incursion. 96.242.227.52 ( talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
According to the May 7th ISW report, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that Ukrainian forces held a presence on the Dnipro islands. I feel that this should be included in this article.
"The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) acknowledged that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence on islands in the Dnipro River delta as of May 7. The Russian MoD claimed on May 7 that Russian forces struck a Ukrainian command center on Velykyi Island (23km southwest of Kherson City)." IdioticAnarchist ( talk) 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Should skirmishes in and along the Kakhovka Reservoir be included in this article? I had assumed that the area of the campaign was what is in the top infobox picture. Basically from the Kinburn to Nova Kakhovka. However, the addition on the pseudo-mystical ZNPP raid in this article would stretch this all the way to Zaporizhzhia greatly expanding the zone of conflict by about ~115 miles. I feel that the ZNPP raid should be talked about in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis article and that this aricle only talk about skirmishes between the Kinburn and Nova Kakhovka. Scu ba ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This title refers to the river, which Wikipedia calls Dnieper, rather than the city, which it calls Dnipro. Nominator suggests that English sources more often use the spelling Dnipro (for WP:COMMONNAME). However, opponents note that this is because those sources are calling the river itself the Dnipro, not that they are using the phrase "Dni____ campaign" as a common name (much less as a common name distinctive from the name of the river). Rather, "Dni____ campaign" is the descriptive name that Wikipedians have assigned to the topic. Accordingly, opponents object that there is no common name of the campaign as distinct from the common name of the river, and that WP:CONSISTENT/ WP:CONSUB point to using the same spelling as the Dnieper article (where a move request was recently closed as "not moved"). ( non-admin closure) SilverLocust ( talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → 2022–2023 Dnipro campaign – Of English-language sources cited in the article, the clear majority use the spelling Dnipro. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
Few use Dnieper, [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] one uses both spellings, [35] and some don’t use the river’s name at all. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Both Dnipro and Dnieper are commonly used English spellings for the river. We should follow sources and use the most WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources on the subject of this campaign and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  — Michael Z. 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
You pronounced this nonsense, so now I was promoted to the status of pro-Russian account? Is that what this mean? Marcelus ( talk) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was closed by me as moved, however, an editor raised arguments on my talk page following which, had they had been included here, I felt that I would have closed it differently. I have reopened the request for further discussion as requested, and am recusing myself from closing of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"exception to this rule is where a specific subtopic has its own common name".
That Marcelus declares their opposition to postcolonialism in history and decolonization of knowledge, I never declared anything like this. Maybe I didn't make myself perfectly clear, but I don't think we are dealing with decolonization of anything here. First of all, because, as was mentioned in the discussion, the Dnieper is not a "Ukrainian" river, it does not belong to Ukraine exclusively, so it cannot be subject to this process. Secondly, the name "Dnieper" is not a "colonial" name, it is not a name imposed by the Russians on anyone, neither Ukrainians nor Anglo-Saxons. Besides, "decolonization" is not something we should be guided by when editing Wikipedia, it is your personal bias, which I mentioned in my comment, and which you mistakenly described as a "personal attack."
looks like trying to WP:right great wrongs to me: they are, for whatever reason, opposing the consensus in reliable sources on this subject and refusing to follow them, but there is no such consensus, the sources used in the article do not form it, besides, as mentioned, the name "Dnieper/Dnipro campaign" does not appear in any of them, so they are completely useless in this regard. Marcelus ( talk) 16:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The links in the proposal are the evidence. Where’s yours?, evidence of what? Marcelus ( talk) 18:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The article states that the ship was sighted on the 3rd of June, after the most recent Russian claims of sinking the ship. The article cited is about the sighting in June 2022, after a near-destruction event back then. Liekveel ( talk) 13:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus/moved to Dnieper campaign (2022–present). No consensus for exactly what title was best, however there was consensus that the descriptor should be 2022–present rather than 2022–2023. No prejudice against further discussion regarding the article title (see WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). ( closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → Dnieper clashes (2022–present) – In my opinion, "clashes" is more correct, as it's not a proper campaign like the Eastern Ukraine campaign. The "(2022–present)" seems to be more appropriate, and more consistent.
No opposition to Dnieper campaign (2022–present) if others prefer. 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material Works 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Dnieper campaign doesn't even exist, so why even include a disambiguator? 🔠Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be better to restructure this article in a more chronological way. It's not like most of these sectors are having major developments at the same time, and it is more natural from the perspective of a reader who isn't super-familiar with the names of every little island and bridgehead. HappyWith ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Why do the tiny war subsections on pages like [[Ostriv Velykyi Potomkin]] and [[Kinburn Spit]] have more info about the campaign in those places than this article itself? We should merge and centralize most of the info into this page, and briefly describe summarize the events in the pages about the geographic objects. We shouldn't be linking readers away to sub-subsections of pages about various geographical objects to learn about the main topic of the article. HappyWith ( talk) 20:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Who has ANY proof that Russia has reconquered Nestrya island at the mouth of the river on May. 13th 2024? That's not true... Ukraine is still there on June 1st according to ISW
@ DinoSoupCanada: I like the idea for the article, but the Kinburn Spit section (and potentially more, I didn't check) is literally word for word as far as I can tell, minus taking out the subparagraph headers and the blockquote. Without the headers, there are no breaks in the reading and it is clunky to read, but with them, it's just entirely copied material. Linking to the Ukrainian recapture attempts section in the Kinburn Spit article is definitely not 'further information', it's the exact same. I feel the section needs to be summarized to a basic overview of the skirmishes, because as of now, 3/4th of the article is just the Kinburn Spit section, which doesn't put due attention on the other also very important skirmishes happening alongside the Dnipro River. I wrote the entire 2022 Russian invasion section for the Kinburn Spit article some months back now, so I can help out with this if needed, but some rephrasing I feel is definitely needed. Johnson524 ( Talk!) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe that in the long-term this article will be notable. However, we can easily tell these skirmishes are Ukrainian preparations for a southern counteroffensive. When the time comes and such counteroffensive takes place, I believe we should have this article merged into its article as a prelude section. 2022 Kherson counteroffensive#Prelude goes back several months and can serve as a model. Still, this article shouldn't be deleted for now, as making a page for an inexistent counteroffensive is nonsense. The status quo is favorable now, though I am not sure about it in the future. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The article alternates between the Russian and Ukrainian names for the river. We need to settle on one. Stara Marusya ( talk) 08:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
On April 22nd, the ISW confirmed that the northern bank of the Konka river fell the previous night. This means the northern outskirts of Oleshky are under Ukrainian control. This needs to be put on it’s own section, as it’s too notable to call an incursion. 96.242.227.52 ( talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
According to the May 7th ISW report, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that Ukrainian forces held a presence on the Dnipro islands. I feel that this should be included in this article.
"The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) acknowledged that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence on islands in the Dnipro River delta as of May 7. The Russian MoD claimed on May 7 that Russian forces struck a Ukrainian command center on Velykyi Island (23km southwest of Kherson City)." IdioticAnarchist ( talk) 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Should skirmishes in and along the Kakhovka Reservoir be included in this article? I had assumed that the area of the campaign was what is in the top infobox picture. Basically from the Kinburn to Nova Kakhovka. However, the addition on the pseudo-mystical ZNPP raid in this article would stretch this all the way to Zaporizhzhia greatly expanding the zone of conflict by about ~115 miles. I feel that the ZNPP raid should be talked about in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis article and that this aricle only talk about skirmishes between the Kinburn and Nova Kakhovka. Scu ba ( talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. This title refers to the river, which Wikipedia calls Dnieper, rather than the city, which it calls Dnipro. Nominator suggests that English sources more often use the spelling Dnipro (for WP:COMMONNAME). However, opponents note that this is because those sources are calling the river itself the Dnipro, not that they are using the phrase "Dni____ campaign" as a common name (much less as a common name distinctive from the name of the river). Rather, "Dni____ campaign" is the descriptive name that Wikipedians have assigned to the topic. Accordingly, opponents object that there is no common name of the campaign as distinct from the common name of the river, and that WP:CONSISTENT/ WP:CONSUB point to using the same spelling as the Dnieper article (where a move request was recently closed as "not moved"). ( non-admin closure) SilverLocust ( talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → 2022–2023 Dnipro campaign – Of English-language sources cited in the article, the clear majority use the spelling Dnipro. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
Few use Dnieper, [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] one uses both spellings, [35] and some don’t use the river’s name at all. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Both Dnipro and Dnieper are commonly used English spellings for the river. We should follow sources and use the most WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources on the subject of this campaign and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  — Michael Z. 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
You pronounced this nonsense, so now I was promoted to the status of pro-Russian account? Is that what this mean? Marcelus ( talk) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was closed by me as moved, however, an editor raised arguments on my talk page following which, had they had been included here, I felt that I would have closed it differently. I have reopened the request for further discussion as requested, and am recusing myself from closing of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"exception to this rule is where a specific subtopic has its own common name".
That Marcelus declares their opposition to postcolonialism in history and decolonization of knowledge, I never declared anything like this. Maybe I didn't make myself perfectly clear, but I don't think we are dealing with decolonization of anything here. First of all, because, as was mentioned in the discussion, the Dnieper is not a "Ukrainian" river, it does not belong to Ukraine exclusively, so it cannot be subject to this process. Secondly, the name "Dnieper" is not a "colonial" name, it is not a name imposed by the Russians on anyone, neither Ukrainians nor Anglo-Saxons. Besides, "decolonization" is not something we should be guided by when editing Wikipedia, it is your personal bias, which I mentioned in my comment, and which you mistakenly described as a "personal attack."
looks like trying to WP:right great wrongs to me: they are, for whatever reason, opposing the consensus in reliable sources on this subject and refusing to follow them, but there is no such consensus, the sources used in the article do not form it, besides, as mentioned, the name "Dnieper/Dnipro campaign" does not appear in any of them, so they are completely useless in this regard. Marcelus ( talk) 16:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The links in the proposal are the evidence. Where’s yours?, evidence of what? Marcelus ( talk) 18:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The article states that the ship was sighted on the 3rd of June, after the most recent Russian claims of sinking the ship. The article cited is about the sighting in June 2022, after a near-destruction event back then. Liekveel ( talk) 13:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus/moved to Dnieper campaign (2022–present). No consensus for exactly what title was best, however there was consensus that the descriptor should be 2022–present rather than 2022–2023. No prejudice against further discussion regarding the article title (see WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). ( closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → Dnieper clashes (2022–present) – In my opinion, "clashes" is more correct, as it's not a proper campaign like the Eastern Ukraine campaign. The "(2022–present)" seems to be more appropriate, and more consistent.
No opposition to Dnieper campaign (2022–present) if others prefer. 90.255.6.219 ( talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material Works 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Dnieper campaign doesn't even exist, so why even include a disambiguator? 🔠Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be better to restructure this article in a more chronological way. It's not like most of these sectors are having major developments at the same time, and it is more natural from the perspective of a reader who isn't super-familiar with the names of every little island and bridgehead. HappyWith ( talk) 20:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Why do the tiny war subsections on pages like [[Ostriv Velykyi Potomkin]] and [[Kinburn Spit]] have more info about the campaign in those places than this article itself? We should merge and centralize most of the info into this page, and briefly describe summarize the events in the pages about the geographic objects. We shouldn't be linking readers away to sub-subsections of pages about various geographical objects to learn about the main topic of the article. HappyWith ( talk) 20:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)