Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?

(The heading above is a link to the archived RFC as it is significant and I'm assuming this will be discussed more while not cluttering the talk page with a 29 page discussion Phiarc (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

• No Anas Azeem 2005 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean no? They were not asking a question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Um, yes they were: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? EEng 07:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah - I see how this could be slightly confusing EEng. For any future editors as well...

  This section heading is a link into the archives. If you click it you'll see the original question was asked on Feb 27th, discussed extensively, and closed as "no consensus" on March 6. The link provides easy reference, and keeps the (already discussed) question visible on the main talk page rather than just buried in the archives.

  If you have the same question, or to open a new question/RfC on this topic, please familiarize yourself —at a minimum— with the summary of the previous discussion. --N8 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I'm easily confused. EEng 20:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the preceding discussion, I changed the heading. Hopefully EEng#s is less confused. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian

Today Belarusian political police GUBOPiK arrested user of Russian Wikipedia from Minsk who was working on the article about the invasion accusing him of the "spread of anti-Russian materials" [1] [2]. Should we mention this unprecedented case or is it necessary to wait for additional details? — Homoatrox (talk). 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends on whether "Mark Bernstein" is actually a Wiki editor, has been arrested, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, why is this relevant to the war? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. EEng 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. EEng 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not say his arrest was not, I said I do not see why it is relevaslt to an article about the war (and not say its social impacts). Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we make separate article? For example, "List of persecuted Wikipedians" or something else? K8M8S8 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No. We do not need a new article for every minor news story. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems more closely related to topics like Russian–Ukrainian information war, Censorship in Belarus, etc. even perhaps Belarus–Russia relations. Interesting story but tangential to the topic of invasion. --N8 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@KUrban (WMF): This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? Boud (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is a comment on Wiki-l from the the WMF. KUrban (WMF) (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Verge links to this account which says an indefinite global block was applied "До выяснения обстоятельств" ("until we know what's going on"). I assume it's to reduce the probability of him being tortured and made to edit under duress. Boud (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources link Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)'s arrest with his editing of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine related Wikipedia pages, so it seems relevant. Boud (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Who made an article? WP:BLP1E exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Known for over a decade as a major Wikipedia editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. Boud (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Furthermore WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The three conditions being 1) single event (check), 2) otherwise a low profile individual (check), 3) the event is not significant (check,this routine in Belarussia and Russia). Being in the news for five minutes does not constitute notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

At least add it as a trivia knowledge. 2001:4BB8:2CC:5842:3DF5:D716:55F:5383 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing killed commanders?

Other wiki pages present the list of commanders that have been killed during conflicts. Although some are missing confirmation by the losing side yet, I think it's worth it to start documenting those casualties.

• Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, Deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army: Associated Press claims having Russian official on record
• Maj. Gen. Vitaly Gerasimov, Chief of staff, 41st Combined Arms Army: Ukraine News, The Guardian, citing Ukraine's intelligence agency
• Maj. Gen. Andrei Kolesnikov, 29th Combined Arms Army: Official Ukrainian report

P4p5 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, they are sourceable as senior commanders. Wikilinked them: Andrey Sukhovetsky, Vitaly Gerasimov, Andrei Kolesnikov (general). We should also add current commanders for both Russia and Ukraine; who are they? Bommbass (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. They are important commanders in charge of large forces having significant outcomes on the battlefield. They can be just mentioned in the infobox. Sng Pal (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe they should be included on this page. Include them in the campaign in which they were killed. Those commanders’ deaths have relatively little impact in the overall invasion and this page is already too long. KD0710 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

They should just be mentioned in the infobox. That doesn't really make the article much longer. Bommbass (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It does on mobile. Last I checked the infobox was eight screenfulls to scroll by on my phone. Phiarc (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

They were killed in this campaign, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. `°° P4p5 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of gen. Vitaly Gerasimov is reported to have stalled the Kharkiv offensive, described as the deadliest battle of the invasion. When army chiefs are deployed so near within the hot spots, I would argue that’s because they’re a crucial factor of the army’s effectiveness and therefore also deserve attention in this article. Eplerud (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally disagree about adding them to the infobox. That is an overall summary and some mid-senior generals wouldn’t really be appropriate. KD0710 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Are they really only as unimportant as you say though? Seen the major coverage on their deaths, and the wording used in trustworthy news media ("top general", "major blow", etc.), they seem senior commanders? Bommbass (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States has lost 1 general in combat since the end of WW2. A general dying in combat, even a 1-star general, is a big deal. That's one of the reasons why it is listed in many other similar articles: Iraq War , Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Iran–PJAK conflict, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Operation Astute, Mexican drug war, Somali Civil War (2009–present) (that's not an exhaustive list). Some of them include commanders that aren't top level at all. And to put things in perspective, is a "mid-senior" general commanding 10,000 troops less relevant than some warlord commanding a few thousand men at best. I'm not saying we should list them all, but those killed in combat is quite a bit more important than most of the information on the page.

P4p5 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

the main page of World War II does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the main page no, but pages about months-long campaigns do: Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II), Philippines campaign (1944–1945), North African campaign, World War II in Yugoslavia, Anglo-Iraqi War. The question is if we consider this article a campaign in a bigger war and I would argue it is due to how the article is framing it by being part of the Russo-Ukrainian War. P4p5 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The separate WW2 articles for the invasion of Poland, the Eastern front, North African campaign do show a detailed list of the commanders involved and KIAs. The «main page» for this conflict following this logic would be the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war article, but the above mentioned theatres of WW2 are more similar in scale than WW2 as a whole. Eplerud (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, because WWII is too big to cover in an infobox. I could show 99 other articles having 5x larger infobox than this. That's a bad example. Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is not that these casualties shouldn't be mentioned somewhere - but where. They need to be written into the body of this article or another article. They certainly cannot just be dumped into the infobox under the casualties section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is meant to be an at-a-glance summary and not a repository for miscellaneous information. The casualty section is already too bloated to be an at-a-glance summary as it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? Bommbass (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not there either for much the same reasons. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Phiarc, the infobox is already too long. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Syria as Belligerent on Russian side

Russia is recruiting Syrian troops and sending them to Russia to fight the war. Also, the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has backed the Russian invasion. Then Syria should be added to the Belligerent list along with Belarus under the heading support. Can this edit be made? Citations: Putin approves foreign volunteers Russia recruiting Syrians Syria backs Putin's invasion Bashar al-Assad supports Russian invasion

Sng Pal (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't write the article in the infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is not mentioned in the body of the article. Please write the article first. Then the infobox can reflect and summarise the body of the article. This must also be a specific action by the state of Syria. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As the article says, "volunteers", these are not official Syrian troops. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Braindrain

Can someone include - in the economic impact section - the potential brain-drain the war & sanctions are causing for Russia? Some reliable sources about this topic: BBC [3], WSJ [4], FT [5] Bommbass (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific and change above to "no" Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Change the spelling of Odessa to Odesa throughout to match the use of other Ukrainian spellings for cities that are in Ukraine. 146.198.64.213 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Odessa is that is should be spelled as such. There would be a need for an RfC to change that on that page which has already failed multiple times. If you disagree, that should be handled on the city’s talk page and not here. KD0710 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing on basis of "requires consensus" per KD0710 above. Refer to Talk:Odessa. --N8 13:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is all generally fair, but the IP raises a decent point about consistency in the article. We are using Ukrainian spelling (or thereabouts, e.g. Irpin instead of the correct Irpin') everywhere else. We write Kharkiv, Lviv, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Donbas rather than Kharkov, Lvov, Kiev, Chernigov, Donbass and so on. In that respect, Odessa sticks out as odd. It isn't necessary to rename our article for that matter, as Odesa is a valid redirect. You only need a consensus here to use that spelling here. The consensus at Talk:Odessa is irrelevant for our purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There's should indeed be consistency, but on the article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Picky point: those aren't Ukrainian spellings, but romanisations using one of the rules available. It looks like "Odessa" with "ss" is a German-based rule, presumably to maintain /s/ rather than the /ts/ which would result from a single "s". Bazza (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, Ukrainian uses the Cyrillic alphabet just like Russian and Serbian. The point was that, for example, we write Kharkiv from Хаpkiв (Ukrainian), instead of Kharkov from Хapьkoв (Russian). I, uh, don't know why we'd be using German transliteration instead of British to be honest, and the article on Odessa suggests that the Russian spelling is Одecca (missing diacritics), so am not entirely sure that the German system is the reason for this spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes the Russian spelling is Одecca and the Ukrainian Одeca but in English has it ever been spelled other than Odessa? I don't think so. And whereas the other examples like Kharkiv are reasonable transliterations of the original, in English the double S seems to more accurately represent the pronunciation. I believe Odesa wouldn't work so well. FrankP (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox belligerents

Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? Martianmister (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ Q2. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

So, on this note, the RfC specifically suggests reopening it with a more narrowly focused question. Could we mock up a full example of what the infobox would look like with the "Supported By" field included (but not in the belligerents section, as consensus is against that), and then open a new RfC with that specific proposal? I feel like it's time to try again. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The closer would assume that the infobox has the feature to support such a distinction. I don't believe it does. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the infobox size wrt WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox should be an at-a-glance summary and therefore not excessively long. One should note that mobile devices do not support drop-downs. The infobox is reported herein to already be about 8 screens long on a mobile device. That is already way too long without adding more intricate detail that would make it even longer. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bigger....longer the info box is the more readers will not read the article statsMoxy- 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

biological weapons

The article currently states:

"Chinese diplomats, government agencies, and state-controlled media in China have used the war as an opportunity to deploy anti-American propaganda, and amplified conspiracy theories created by Russia such as the false claims of US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine."

The absence of US biological weapons in Ukraine is stated as fact. However, it isn't really since there is no independent confirmation of the truth of this absence. So, instead, it is rather simply an assertion by the US and Ukraine governments, which has the contrary assertion by the Russia government. Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here.

There are some reasons to be suspicious of the US–Ukraine assertions:

(1) Reuters reported that World Health Organization recommended that Ukraine destroy "destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population..." and that "Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO." (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/) Obviously, this does not mean that what referred to here by the WHO are actually biological weapons. But, it could plausibly be weapons. The public has no way to know at this time.

(2) Victoria Nuland in answering questions from Congress said that there was an effort to "prevent materials from Ukraine’s biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands." Now, whether these materials are biological weapons or something else is unknown to the public, but they could plausibly be weapons. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-10/u-s-hits-china-for-pushing-russia-s-preposterous-lab-theory)

(3) The US government has a history of secretly testing biological warfare techniques on its own US population in earlier decades. So, it may be reasonable for some folks to suspect US assertions about this a priori.

At the very least, you need to use words like allegedly false, etc. in this article when we have no way knowing which country is making false statements. – ishwar  (speak) 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about claimes by China, please see COVID-19_misinformation#Accusations_by_China, etc. It is intentional disinformation per multiple RS, and it should be described as such on WP pages. Speaking about the publications in Reuters and others, they only say that Ukraine conducted biological research with pathogens, nothing more. That is done in every country, nothing special. To the contrary, UN said there was no any info about WMD in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We base everything on what reliable sources say. There have been no reliable sources that have found any evidence that any biochemical weapons exist in Ukraine and a vast majority affirm that they don’t. If you have anything to the contrary, please post. KD0710 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The RS cited says it is disinformation and a conspiracy theory. I'm not too keen on giving apparent credence–by casting doubt–to (what RS describe as) Russian disinformation. Your analysis above is OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analysis nor original research (it's not research at all). If one aims for Wikipedia to be impartial, the article merely needs to state (a) Russia–China allegations of biological weapons, (b) US–Ukraine denial of said allegations, (c) US-Ukraine counter-allegation of Russia–China disinformation concerning previously stated weapon allegation, (d) no evidence of anything. Everything else including the truth of any of these allegations is simply unknown at present.

As it reads now, the article is claiming that Russia–China are making false statements. But, we do not know if they are false. All we know is that the concerned parties are making denials. (I guess we also know that the sources are aligned with US/Ukraine.)

It's good to use reliable sources. I'm in complete agreement with that. However, the source(s) yall are relying upon itself has a source, which in fact are the parties accused of having weapons. If that's ok with yall, fine. Then, leave it as is. However, I do point out inherent bias in doing so. – ishwar  (speak) 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that pathogens housed in Ukraine's laboratories could plausibly be weapons is a majestic leap in OR. Pious Brother (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here." this is a misunderstanding that crops up from time to time in articles around this. WP:NPOV does not mean that you take opposing viewpoints and present the midpoint (which would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you do it), or that opposing viewpoints must be given equal weight and credence simply because they are opposing (WP:BALANCE). Phiarc (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I will invoke wp:blp, we cannot imply someone has done something until it is proven they have. So until independent investigation shows Ukiriane has been deploying WMD (of any kind) we have to make it clear such a claim lacks any credible evidence. So we can either say "woth out any credible evidence" or just they they do not have them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial to state that the claim that there are US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine is false. The claim has been thoroughly debunked, and therefore there is no need for any vagueness here. BeŻet (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a second to contemplate Russia's accusation. Russia accused the United States of creating weapon labs in Ukraine, directly on the border with Russia to make a coronavirus type disease that will target a specific race. Why would the US ever open bio weapons labs in such a preposterous location you might ask? Well, the Russians answered this as well, it's because the US was planning to send the virus in to Russia on infected bats. Jajaja, after we've all had a nice chuckle on what has to be one of the most bizarre accusations to have ever been articulated not only in the UN but in the entire city of New York, I think we can agree that this accusation is in many ways the definition of WP:FRINGE. We have the New York Times which straight up calls it non-sense, that's more than good enough for me. To comply with the edit you've requested of saying that it's possible we'd need at least The New Yorker and the New England Journal of Medicine corroborating it, because otherwise the accusation is comically absurd. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not take a false balance position halfway between the truth and a lie. Reliable sources say these are propaganda allegations based on no evidence, dredged up from propaganda repeated multiple times over the last eight years. —Michael Z. 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an example of a reliable source on this:

• Donie O'Sullivan, “Analysis: Russia and QAnon have the same false conspiracy theory about Ukraine,” CNN, March 10, 2022.

 —Michael Z. 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

6 peace efforts (section

should be 1 (first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.30.38 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's one, but there are some peace talks that are continuations of others. But... I do believe that each talk should be listed separately. KD0710 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

time magazine article talking about hate towards Russians

https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/ Persesus (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a scattering of these articles, and maybe the issue should be discussed somewhere, but I don't see the sources showing this is prevalent enough for it to be included in this article. It seems to be mostly localised phenomena. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We have the opposite view as well that could be mentioned.... that is... Sympathy for the Russian citizens... like our fellow Wikipedia editor that got arrested [6].Moxy- 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment, perhaps? What is the link about? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About balance Wikipedia:Controversial articles.Moxy- 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained

"Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus," Yahoo.

"Authorities in Belarus have arrested and detained ... one of the top editors of Russian Wikipedia.... Bernstein was reportedly accused of violating the "fake news" law Russia passed in early March by editing the Wikipedia article about the invasion of Ukraine. Under the new law, anybody found guilty of what the country deems as false information about the Ukraine invasion — remember, the Kremlin calls it a "special military operation" — could be imprisoned for up to 15 years." --2603:7000:2143:8500:19EE:D8B5:8A85:4329 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been tagged. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox too big

Phiarc reports that the infobox, when viewed on a mobile device is about eight screens long! It is partly due to excessive detail. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE this should be an at-a-glance summary of a summary article. We don't write the article in the infobox - WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Dropdowns might look good on a PC but they don't work on mobiles. As Moxy observes, our readers just aren't going to read the article if they can't get past the infobox. We need to be more ruthless in trimming content in the infobox to the most important. Just because the infobox has a parameter doesn't mean we have to use them. The infobox documentation says many parameters are optional. What might have be done in other articles does not necessarily represent best practice unless these are our best quality articles. Even then, we must consider the specifics and circumstances and the comparability of events before comparing how our best articles might set a benchmark of best practice in this case. Our duty is to our readers.

Some thoughts:

• Images We don't need a montage of six images. For a long time, we only had the map.
• Dynamic map It tells us alot but the legend symbols could be shrunk or omitted since it is pretty self-evident and has its own integrated legend.
• Status Of course it is ongoing. The open date tells us that. Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus. Duh, it's an invasion. It's all superfluous. Some significant links could be integrated into the caption of the map.
• Territorial changes Redundant - the map shows us that.
• Strengths We don't have to give a breakdown of the Ukrainian forces in detail. This breakdown could be given in a note, which I believe is mobile compatible. Notes could also be used in other instances.
• Casualties and losses

• This probably takes the most space.
• We have a section in the article for this. Report summarised info from that section into the infobox and link to that section for details. Report a range or an average.
• We are reporting three different sources in the infobox. Ukraine and Russian sources aren't independent. We could report just the independent source while linking to the section for more detail.
• Donetsk PR: We don't need to report this in the infobox. Do away with the flag icons. Report total losses on either side. Use a note if necessary to give detail.
• Material losses

• These significantly add to length in mobile devices since the lists don't collapse.
• These aren't all that significant such that they need to be listed in a summary of a summary. If anything, use a link.

• Civilian casualties/refugees

• Don't individually report multiple sources. See above and dealing with military casualties.
• Reduce superfluous text (eg OHCHR estimates that the real figures are considerably higher - the source is given as a ref it doesn't need to be repeated; use a note if necessary).
• Foreign civilian casualties: Tragic but not so significant in the totality of civilian casualties. We don't have to report everything in an infobox.

These may be hard decisions but decisions that need to be made for the benefit of our readers. These are my observations on how the issue might be addressed but there needs to be a consensus on how to progress this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I concur with your observations. Especially for "Casualties and losses", I think it is better to write the detailed information in sections of this article (or different article if becoming too long) and just put a link in the infobox, like "See Section..." P1221 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

STRONGLY AGREE - The length of this info box is gigantic and contains entirely too much information. My biggest problem is that there are entirely too many lines for casualties (make it a range, with detailed info in the article) and the material losses. This is a war and material losses are not generally what is most notable about the event, therefore don't belong in this info box. If you want to add those losses to individual battles info boxes (as long as they are relevant) fine. KD0710 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree - we need to stop with this ridiculous idea of writing articles in infoboxes. It's a readability issue due to how they function on mobiles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most obvious issues. With regards to materiel losses, we should do what many RS do and just report the total figure (X aircraft, tanks and ...), and leave full detail for the actual article. We don't need entire rows dedicated to each of "1 An-26, 3 Su-27, 1 MiG-29, 1 patrol vessel, 1 frigate (scuttled to prevent capture)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. The easiest thing to do would be to kick all the detailed casualty figures either into a footnote, or into the "Casualties" section. There could be a simple overview in the infobox, and an internal link for details. This would trim things down considerably. The more controversial option is to go back to just a map in the infobox - all of those images take up a lot of room. I'd argue that 6 is too many anyway even if we want to keep some - give the images room to breath, they'll be too small to read with so many, so set a hard cap of 3 or 4 if kept at all. SnowFire (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think images we can live with, but maybe we should drop the captions (or make text size smaller) on mobiles only, and let people click the image if they want more info. Mobile and desktop design is not meant to be parallel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The images are OK, though on mobile they expand into a long series of still-small images, one per row, for some reason. On Iraq war it stays as a collage, which would be preferable here as well. Though I would advise against emulating the other aspects of the Iraq war infobox, on my phone that's seventeen screens - going to be tired from scrolling before even getting to the article! In the infobox here the caption gets expanded in a weird way on mobile; each item is suddenly its own paragraph with top and bottom margins. Phiarc (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Technical note: the reason the Iraq war montage stays together is because it's all one image (File:Iraq War montage.png), whereas this article uses the template {{multiple images}} and is made up of multiple individual images. Levivich 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an alternative template that retains the layout on mobile? Baking things into files hampers editing, and there will surely be a lot of editing on this for some time to come... Phiarc (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The mobile layout was discussed/changed a few years ago at Template talk:Multiple image/Archive 2##mobile (stop using inline styles), I lack the technical skills to know if there's a better or different way to do it. WP:COLLAGETIPS mentions {{Image array}}; not sure if that template renders any differently on mobile. Levivich 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image array renders as an HTML table and can't support the "masonry" style layout we're using here. I went ahead and made the collage into a single image, which is arguably a bad solution because you can click on an image and get to the large version and commons page directly, but fixes the bad layout on mobile which is where most of the readers are. For some reason it appeared OK at first but lost transparency after reloading. Very strange. Hence reverted. Phiarc (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

With the current set of changes (as far as I can tell: replaced breakdown of civilian casualties with a link, totalized equipment losses, removed obvious list of in "Status", removed "Territorial changes", removed wagner group) the infobox length has decreased by about 20-25 % Phiarc (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What do people think about turning infobox casualties into a range (i.e. 498-12,000+ killed) and then collapsing who is giving each end of the range into a footnote? BSMRD (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This should happen. It takes into consideration all reports and gives an overview. KD0710 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox&diff=1077116453&oldid=1077114202 I'm not sure about efn though - might as well move this into the casualties section and use a proper link. This has the added advantage that there is just one place for a detailed breakdown of losses. Phiarc (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to merge all data from the detailed casualty breakdowns in the infobox in the main casualty article which is transcluded into this article as well. Now we've got the claimed ranges in the infobox with the relatively prominent link directly below to "casualties and humanitarian impact". The equipment loses were condensed in the meantime as well. We're now down to five screens on my phone from over eight initially. If we get the image collage sorted out I think it's a manageable size and it is also readable now, so it actually serves WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE now. Phiarc (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be helpful - we'd end up with massive ranges which are effectively WP:SYNTH, as no individual source would support the entire range. Jr8825 • Talk 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Jr8825. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny how some "strongly agree" claiming this infobox is too big. Perhaps you haven't seen Syrian civil war infobox. With this, infobox barely tells anything. Also as claimed by ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) I do not see any consensus here. Maybe just delete the pictures on the infobox, instead we could add more useful information that are unneeded according certain users. This isn't about aestethics, it's about providing information. Removing half of the infobox doesn't help anything. Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, moving the claims/figures and sources/references to efn has made them invisible to the readers, leaving unsourced claimed figures which are un-attributed in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

One solution to partially cut down, at least in regards to casualty figures, is to follow a consensus that was established years ago at the start of the war in 2014 to include only figures on self-admitted losses or figures on losses reported by a third party in the infobox and casualty tables, so to avoid potentially presenting propaganda claims as fact. Consensus was also not to exclude propaganda claims entirely, but to present them in the main body of the article. Thus, the Ukrainian and Russian claims of the their enemies casualties can be presented in the main text. This would cut down the info in the infobox a bit, we could also still leave a link towards a casualty section so readers could read the potential propaganda claims by the belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that so we can put it in the FAQ (Q3) - "Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine"? Phiarc (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I just finished updating both Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox and the casualties section, leaving a link in the infobox towards the casualties section so people can see the other claims made by the belligerents regarding their enemies losses. I also added a note (visible only to editors) to update the claims made by Russia and Ukraine [7]. You can change it if you think it needs additional adjustment and can use the link for the Q3. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What about just moving all casualty data entirely out of IB into prose with a link indicating "disputed", "differing reports", "estimates vary", etc.? ...at least until RSs agree after some fog of war has cleared. I don't see why we should trust either side for accuracy - even in their own numbers - during an active conflict so closely linked with misinformation and propaganda. Even some allegedly neutral third party sources (particularly state sources) would have reason to allow for inaccuracies until the conflict resolves. WP:V is clear that when reliable sources disagree the article stays neutral using attribution. If we can't be accurate, attribute claims succinctly, or maintain npov in such a small space, we shouldn't gamble on which one source to use as a summary; we should point readers to where they can get proper context. After all, the best true summary of the prose is arguably "disputed". --N8 01:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point. I think obviously, something there is preferable, but can we trust the sources to be accurate? I’m not sure. I think we can count out Ukraine’s data as well as Russia’s. Perhaps the U.S. or U.K. might be the best option at this point if any numbers are included KD0710 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur on a couple points; viewed on my mobile, the Syrian civil war infobox is ridiculously wide, taking up about ¾ width of the page, leaving the lead to be sandwiched to the far left, with only one or two words per line! As for length, it's about a 1.5 screens long. Also agree that on this page, the infobox, while at normal width and less than a screen in length, could still stand to lose a few of images. (imo) - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that your example is not a best practice. It's longer than any campaign in World War II. It is pretty obvious that it goes past summarizing key features of the page's subject. KD0710 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because another article also has issues doesn't mean we should let them pertrude into even more articles. We can't fix all the issues with every article on this talk page. But I agree that a lot of 'modern' conflicts have infobox (and general article) issues, particularly with regards to excessive details, and I raised this at the MILHIST project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phiarc: I'm using a smartphone to view this article and the infobox fits on one screen with room to spare, no scrolling required. Perhaps there has been extensive cuts made, can you link to a diff where the infobox was "eight screens long"? And I'm also curious; what mobile device you're viewing this on? Thanks - wolf 17:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm using an iPhone SE (1st generation) (which is one of the smaller smartphones one might be using in 2022). Here's how the current revision looks, which is still trimmed down in various places: File:Russian invasion infobox size iPhone SE.png. Checking on my other phone, a much bigger iPhone SE (2nd generation), it's still 5.5 screens, though now the images stay in their layout, which saves a lot of space. (Using the desktop version on mobile, yes, it only takes on screen - but that's because the page is zoomed so far out that you can't read anything) Phiarc (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

wolf, I think you’re still using the desktop version of Wikipedia, even though you’re on a smartphone. I also usually use desktop view when I’m reading WP on mobile, and the infobox size is the same for me as it is for you. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article page, there should be a button called “mobile view” that will switch you over to the actual mobile site, and you should be able to see. Hope that helps HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: you are partly right, but in this case mostly wrong. I read WP in mobile view, (which is the preset for me), and only switch to desktop when I'm editing. As I was editing this talk page, I was in desktop mode when I looked at the infobox, so it was the size I stated. But even now, after checking it in mobile view, the infobox is only about 3 screen lengths, which is about the same size as the Normandy landings infobox (as an example). (And fyi, I'm using a Galaxy S10+, which I thought was getting old until Phiarc mentioned that they were rocking a 1st gen iPhone SE). - wolf 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would think it is fair to say that there is a rough consensus that the infobox is too long and it should be reduced. Predictably, there is some disagreement on how this might best be achieved in particular instances. Most notably, there is the matter of casualties. We need to thrash out some of the specifics. I see that a discussion has started at #Causalities. It would be good if we could keep related discussions centralised rather than having multiple parallel discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with casualties in infobox

Note: the initial part of this section has been moved from #Causalities for continuity. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how most people use the wikipedia pages but I personally first dart to the casualties section of the infobox, and then the map, and then read other relevant data. I think the casualties section should be kept as: 1 - self reported 2 - enemy reported and 3 - third party RS (like UK or US) and they should all be visible. That's just my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of discusion

• The body of the article has been edited to include info from the infobox.
• There appears to be a rough consensus to reduce the size of this section but some uncertainty on how best to do this.
• There is an acknowledgement that belligerent sources are likely to both overreport opponents casualties and underreport their own.
• There is some complaint that info placed in a note is not readily seen.
• There is an assertion that reporting a range not supported by a single reference is WP:SYNTH. {note: this is incorrect. This is quite permissible as would be simple addition or subtraction per WP:CALC).
• It was noted that massive ranges are unhelpful.
• Some reference is made to how the issue has been dealt with at Russo-Ukrainian War.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I think it might be best to leave casualty data exclusively in prose until we have source agreement, I would add that along with WP:CALC, "SYNTH is not numerical summarization" also seems to allow enough flexibility to use an inclusive range (lowest min - highest max) with citations if it reaches consensus. --N8 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments We have an article section for casualties. The infobox should summarise that section - not duplicate it. Some options I can see are:

1. We could note that reports vary and link to the article section. If it is too hard to come up with a simple summary, this is a reasonable option IMHO. (per N8wilson above?)
2. We could state the extreme ranges, and link to the article section. It is intrinsically clear that the reports vary because of the extremely wide range.
3. We have two partisan sources which are questionable and a third source. We could report the US source on the basis that it is "more" independent than the two partisan sources; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section.
4. We could report own losses and the independent source as separate entries per the Russo-Ukrainian War. This still leaves a fairly large section and IMHO not the best solution.
5. We could report "greater than X" where X is the lowest figure; note that the results vary; and, link to the article section. It is a conservative approach but not substantially better than relying upon the independent source.

I would tend to options 1 or 3, largely because they are most consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with images

Summary

• Various WP:P&G touch on the use of images generally and specifically in an infobox/lead.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.
• Wikipedia:Image use policy: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Also: The lead image in an infobox should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. - though this mainly deals with width.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. And: It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

• For the initial life of the article, the map was the sole image until a collage was added. (I don't recall any specific discussion re this though there have been some minor changes to the overall collage.)
• In mobile devices, the collage presents as individual images that "stack" and significantly add to the infobox length. Some experiments have been made to change this but without success.
• Examples where the images don't stack, it is because the image is actually a single image file, rather than a collection of image files.
• It has been observed that the map is a more important image than the collage (ie it should be retained over use of the collage).
• Comments would generally reduce the number of images (or their captions) - even down to a single image.

Even though the WP:P&G wasn't raised through the preceding discussion, I thought it appropriate to add. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About images... Never been a fan of the collage approach because we end up with lots of small images instead of one image that is clearly visible. Kind of like collages in city articles.... mini images are useless on a phone... that now represent 70% of our viewership....they also cause a scrolling nightmare losing us readers. Here's a similar discussion COVID-19 info box images RfC.Moxy- 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy, I'm also not a fan of the collage. Go with the map only. - wolf 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Western front"

Is it really accurate to describe the recent air and long-range missile attacks on Western Ukraine as a "Western front"? There's no one on the ground there and similar attacks began on the first day of the invasion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a front yet. There were several cruise missiles attack from Russian ships in Black and Azov seas. But this is a notable escalation. I would suggest just to change the title to something like "Cruise missile attacks close to Lviv". My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Somebody has already changed the section heading to "Missile attacks in Western Ukraine". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. According to Ben Hodges, that attack was not so significant, and "the Russians are about ten days away from what is called the culminating point, when they just no longer have the ammunition nor the manpower to keep up their assault" [8].My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Foreign casualties

"Excluding the Russian soldiers, at least 23 people from eight countries besides Ukraine died because of the war" - This phrase needed to be updated. There are at least 25 people who died because of war (not 23) from ten countries (not eight)

Also, there are some sources about a belarusian volunteer fighting for Ukraine, Aliaksej Skoblia, who was killed in battle near Kyiv yesterday: https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503134196763668481 or https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503151077897785350 Cristi767 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox asymmetry (reserves)

In the infobox Ukraine has reserves, Russia has not (it sould be 2,000,000) --Sinucep (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia’s reserves aren’t actively participating in the invasion, thus not included. Only active participants are included, including Russia’s military. KD0710 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, difference with Ukraine's reserves is that there was general mobilisation, whereas IIRC Putin said there would be no conscription or calling up of Russian reservists to fight in Ukraine. So the former are technically participants, or potential participants, in the military conflict, whereas the latter are not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To tell the truth, Putin lies, as always. Conscripts were used in combat actions in Ukraine, some of them were killed, wounded or captured. And this information was confirmed by Russian Ministry of Defense on 10 March 2022.

In addition, some of Russian military units involved in combat actions manned by voluntary reservists (Russian military human reserve - part-time military service).

Moreover, on 18 February 2022, Putin signed the decree on call-up for military training among persons who are demobbed from active duty service but are not in voluntary reserve service; quantity of persons who are subject of this decree is classified; this mandatory "military training" can last for 2 months. On the use of this persons for combat actions, I have no information. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Potentially a different section detailing what types of losses differentiating between ground, naval, and air equipment. Russia has been losing a significant amount of equipment to "farmers" since near the start of the invasion and should be mentioned since civilians capturing large amounts of tracked armor is highly unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:51C1:8325:A86C:B3F6 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Causalities

The following collapsed discussion has been moved to #Dealing with casualties in infobox to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. BigRed606 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC) It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. KD0710 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC) The infobox has been moved to its own separate template Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC) As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Why not report WP:reliable sources’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated. —Michael Z. 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC) At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @EkoGraf, Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (#Infobox too big) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --N8 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @KD0710, @N8wilson There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Separatist republic demonyms

What are the demonyms for the separatist republics? Are there even demonyms? Donetsk/Luhansk, Donetskian/Luhanskian, DPR/LPR? I've seen Donetsian used for the DPR, but there isn't an equivalent for the LPR. Curbon7 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Donetsian would be someone from the Donets River region. Demonyms aren’t used for these because they are relatively obscure, lack legitimacy, and don’t have defined boundaries. The people who run them identify as Russians and Ukrainians. There may be a regional identity for the Donbas but that would include DLNR people and their adversaries (until the big invasion, the DLNR occupied about a third of the Donbas). —Michael Z. 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, it’s important to differentiate residents of the city of Donetsk and its de jure province, the Donetsk oblast, from people under the Russian proxy rule imposed by the illegal Donetsk People’s Republic (Likewise Luhansk, Luhansk oblast, and the Luhansk People’s Republic).  —Michael Z. 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Denied

Is it forbidden to stand on the Russian side and take part of the wiki talk? --92.40.174.68 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If verifiable information supports the Russian position, it should be included in the discussion. EngineeringEditor (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

NO, but we do expect reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Equipment

Please change it back to the estimated losses for each piece kf equipment, i.e. 80 helicopters 350 tanks etc. It's much less informative to just say 2700 pieces of equipment 67.60.116.128 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of an article which is also a summary. The source gives details. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you can also refer to the body of the article. If the breakdowns aren't in the body then someone could add them there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of DNR and LNR soldiers

Are the Numbers for DNR and LNR soldiers not a way to small? They have conscription now (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/27/stay-hidden-or-get-drafted) and have a population of approximately 3.7 Mio. So, if only ten percent of the males would be forced in the Army that would be about 180000 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4BB8:268:EEAE:D7C5:12AA:5020:CCA8 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find a RS that you believe has updated info. KD0710 (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Independent Source for Equipment Losses

I know that there's been a back and forth about the reliability of using Russian/Ukrainian Ministries of Defense for numbers of losses, and because of this a preference for independent 3rd party sources. On account of this I'd like to recommend Oryx. It has detailed and confirmed listings of equipment losses on both sides see here. The website is trusted and used by Reliable Sources such as The Economist see here and as such gives us an excellent 3rd party source for equipment losses for both sides. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Russias mercenaries from Syria, Libya and Serbia

According to the "Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine" Russia has approved the recruitment of 16,000 Middle East mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine. Source date is from the 13. march.
Today the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported, that "Russian officers" had approved the recuitment of 22,000 Syrians and another 18,000 Syrians are being checked by Wagner Group. So in total 40,000 from syria alone might be drafted. Anyway, at the moment, is is rather unclear how many mercs there are fighting for russia, thats why I wouldnt mention those syrians in the infobox. ----LennBr (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think someone should add all three of these countries as belligerents since those volunteers hail from those three countries. --66.234.79.226 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as there are also volunteers from various other countries fighting on the Ukrainian side. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia please stopped spread Russia propaganda

Wikipeda you dont try to be neutral but you go with humanity. You must side with Ukraine. Because if you neutral by accidently you spread Russia propaganda. You spread Russia lies by writed Russia destroyed more than 3700 Ukraine wachine and Ukraine only destroyed 2700 Russia war machine. Ukraine didnt have the number of aircraft, drones, tanks etc in pre war inventory that Russia claimed destroyed. Ukraine didnt have 160 combat aircrafts, 100 drones, more than 1000 tanks/armoured vehicle. Ukraine only in defensive position and they dont have ability to using war machine in large number. Instead the number Ukraine claimed destroyed from Russia war machine mostly were true. Russia did have a large quantity of war machine in pre war inventory. Russia in attacking position so they always used a large number of war machine. Wikipedia you accidently created article that described Russia as the winner. You support Russia aggresion and the act of killing innocent peoples. So please include Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casuaties in this article. It include list and complete with picture. Russia loses more than 1300 war machine (600 tanks/armored, 400 jeep/trucks, 30 aircraft) and Ukraine loses only 300 war machine (200 tanks/armored, 70 jeep/trucks, 10 aircraft). Please stop support killing civilian in Ukraine. 103.47.135.149 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is not supporting either side, and attempts to give as neutral view of the situation. It does not support killing civilians in Ukraine, or anywhere for that matter.--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not, we take a neutral stance and give both sides version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf what do you think about this? How about only citing independent loss estimates in the infobox and relegating the numbers reported by either conflict party to the casualties article and its transclusion? The data from Oryx is probably not WP:RS (being essentially a personal blog or self-published), though it is the largest publicly available list of claimed losses with some sourcing I know of. Phiarc (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that articles citing Oryx would be ideal, at least for counting losses of Russian vehicles. I'm pretty sure that this was already discussed somewhere else on this talk page--- EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify- I think that news articles that use Oryx's data would work well as Wikipedia citations ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, isn't that just "RS-laundering"? (Assuming Oryx is not citable, why would the same information repeated by e.g. the NYT become citable? - Russian or Ukrainian numbers don't become reliable by being repeated by a media outlet, either.) Phiarc (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of this article. It cites different sources for casualty figures, as well as some vehicle loss claims. It cites Oryx's numbers without taking them as gospel, using them alongside other estimates. ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The invasion began on 2-22-2022

The date on your wiki page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:7236:0:0:0:3 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin authorized the invasion on the 22nd, but it did not begin until 2-24-22 ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite a newspaper article or other source that supports what you're saying. See the "References" at the bottom of the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The article should mention NATO support for Ukraine in the infobox.

Due to NATO or NATO countries giving Ukraine many weapon donations.