Ships[edit]

Hi fellow wikipedians! I was just wondering if the 'ships' list is needed. If we feel it is, it can probably get it's own sublist. Please comment opinions below, so we can get WP:CONSENSUS Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree as I feel like the list will grow longer. If damaged civilian ships are to be included like Millennial Spirit and Namura Queen, then we are already missing Yasa Jupiter, Banglar Samriddhi and Helt. Rinbro (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I'm going to remove it, and if anyone disagrees they can come talk about it.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a new page for the information & have linked it from the template: List of ships damaged during the Russo-Ukrainian War Rinbro (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much thanks, that is a much better solution I think (won't get clogged up), and makes it very analogous to the aircraft page.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minsk agreements[edit]

I don't see the Minsk agreements in the table. It seems to be a solid basis for coming negociations.[1] Should we add them, create a "Background" row ? Yug (talk) 🐲 00:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support this and put the 'relations' articles in there too Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now down this. The 'other' row was empty so I removed it, but I fully anticipate it will get filled again. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-outdated-us-cold-war-policy-worsens-ongoing-russia-ukraine-conflict/

Organisations Response[edit]

I don't think we need the organisations response row, at least as it currently is. The international legion is made of the public and Kletocapture is run by the US government so really should be in 'States'. The IT army is part of Ukriane's forces so I don't think they quite fit there either. If this section was to exist, it should be for NGOs and sports organisations, etc Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was originally a sublist of States, but another editor moved it to its own section. I am open to moving it back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: I'm happy with that, though tbh I still don't see who those 3 articles really fit together. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cell widths[edit]

Does anyone know how to make the cell widths consistent? Would make the template look more presentable. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are consistent within each sub-group. Making them equal across sub-groups would make the substructure harder to follow. The defaults are usually (though not always) chosen for a good reason, keeping in mind that readers will use a huge variety of different browsers and screen sizes and resolutions. Boud (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, ok. I disagree re: " Making them equal across sub-groups would make the substructure harder to follow". Just add a line break between "Northeastern" and "Ukraine" for "Northeastern Ukraine" and I think a consistent width across subgroups would look sharp. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equipements[edit]

Hello the team,
The page Weapons of the Russo-Ukrainian War now accepts contents related to the 2022 war and could be integrated into this template. Yug (talk) 🐲 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bayraktar[edit]

Yeah, let's have a link to a non-existant article on the English Wikipedia and to justify that add an interwiki link to a project written in a completely different script that most of us can't come close to reading. How convenient and constructive of us! ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignorance of non-roman scripts by some en.Wikipedians is not a valid argument for excluding a cross-language link. The knowledge is encyclopedic, and by providing the link, we encourage multi-lingual people to start the en.Wikipedia equivalent articles. The rich, healthy and technically efficient interlingual communications among the different language Wikipedias are one of Wikipedia's incredible strengths. Спасибі! Boud (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of people of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

There's a minor edit war going on regarding people with en.Wikipedia articles who are associated in some way or other with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: list just a few key people, or all associated people? There exists Category:Lists of people and even Category:Lists of lists of people, so if someone wanted to start an article such as List of people assoicated with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then that could become a link in the current People heading, and some of the people less notably associated with the invasion and its consequences could be removed from the navbox. A consensus name would have to be chosen: "associated with" is rather long-winded, but "of" risks sounding like these are people who organised/supported/carried out the invasion (some are, some aren't). Even "associated with" is a bit risky. Maybe "in" or "during", though then the meaning would sound weird. Better ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists where people are active in making/editing WP:STANDALONE list articles and could probably recommend a name likely to obtain consensus. Boud (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I explained twice in my edit summaries, I firmly belive this navbox should not list every single person associated with the conflict, or else the template would become too crammed and messy. If we look at the articles that the IP insists on including, we can see that they all contain few or no sentences regarding the invasion, not even a full paragraph in some cases. To break it down:
I am not opposed to the idea of a List of people assoicated with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, but first I would like the IP to explain their reasoning that all play a substantial role. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter how many sentences Wikipedia' editors wrote in articles about persons. It is a very strange logic (!) to take this into consideration. In a real life, all listed persons play a key role in the conflict. For example:
Finally, about top 10 key people are listed for both side, similar to navbox for War in Donbass, the first phase of war. Per current practice, the same lists of lead fugures (top 10 or top 20) are in the many other such templates: Template:Chechen wars, Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict etc. 92.113.168.56 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The purpose of this navbox is to aid readers in finding articles with information regarding the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Say a reader opens up this navbox and clicks on Denys Shmyhal, expecting to find information on his involvement in the conflict. Instead, they find nothing. Yes, he's the Prime Minister of Ukraine. But his article doesn't provide the reader with any additional information about the invasion, which happens to be the very purpose of this navbox. WP:NAVBOX explicitly states, The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. That puts the final nail in the coffin for 5 of the articles I listed above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criterias for inclusion are not depends from editors work. Never. 92.113.168.56 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As InfiniteNexus said, WP:NAVBOX explicitly states, The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. If you can find public, reliably sourced information (Ukrainian or Russian language sources are allowed, although English language ones are preferred) showing how Denys Shmyhal is involved in this event, then that can be added to his article and the inclusion here would become better justified. I have no idea whether it's better or worse in terms of security risks for Shmyhal's actions (presumably in organising resistance against the invasion) to be listed at Denys Shmyhal. If it's better that his involvement remains non-public for the moment, then his article can wait to be linked in the navbox after the Russian forces leave Ukraine and it's safe for that knowledge to become public. Similarly for the other articles. Boud (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that user:Boud starts separate discussions about each name that s/he wants to remove from the template.--Getting consensus about removing the Ukrainian PM from the template, is likely an uphill battle. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're suggesting that we go against wiki policy?? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be bold! Are you suggesting to not Be bold? 89.8.146.21 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horlivka and Chuhuiv[edit]

46.211.152.40, as you continue to refuse to discuss your edit, I will start this discussion for you. No one is denying that Horlivka is in Eastern Ukraine or Chuhuiv is in Northeastern Ukraine. But as I have explained, this navbox must match their articles and the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, neither of which state they are part of the Eastern Ukraine or Northeastern Ukraine offensives. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you raise this issue on the aforementioned articles' talk pages to have them amended, instead of edit-warring or making snarky edit summaries. Pinging @EpicWikiLad as well in case they have any comments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And try to see the map before your edits. Any other questions? 46.211.152.40 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response. See, if you had explained your reasoning here early on instead of edit-warring with cryptic edit summaries (e.g. see map), this could have been resolved much faster. I will adjust the articles accordingly, unless there is objection from other users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
on my opinion, go on, i also started to think that maybe horlivka, chuhuiv, etc should be part of something and not only "other", but, next time, explain more the reason behind your edit instead of simple words.EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to point out the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has kept the airstrikes out of an offensive and inconclusive. So those should not be moved into an offensive category. Also, the Horlivka offensive is considered a stale offensive. Sources described it as an offensive rather than a battle. I am not objecting moving it into an offensive category, for now, but if the offensive picks up new area's it must be separated. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, so we're not classifying Chuhuiv as part of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive now? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
im going to make a proposal, basically, move horlivka to eastern ukraine, move snake island into southern ukraine, change "other" to "attacks on air bases and installations" and move the bombings on civilians to a new cateogory, what do you guys think?EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) Not saying that. Just saying the air base attack, as stated earlier by 46.211.152.40, was a "prelude for Battle of Kharkiv (2022)". None of the other airbase attacks are listed with an offensive, so I sort of see a pattern. Changing that would probably require each one to be assessed. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you don't think the air bases should be filed under any offensive. Okay. (By the way, I see you have reverted the IP's edit again. I don't think that's a good idea because we don't want any more edit-warring.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sumykhiprom airstrike[edit]

would it be considered a attack on civilian or military targets? because, by definition, a valid military target is something that contributes to the war, and a fertilizer factory doesnt really contribute to the war. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Regardless of which section you believe that article should be placed, you should not have removed it from the navbox outright. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i didn't, i moved it to the attacks on civilians part, but someone removed it from there and re added it on attacks on military, so i removed it from civilians and came here to discuss. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, so it was listed twice. Never mind. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding my two cents: yeah, I don't think a chemical plant counts as a military base. As in, a facility run by the military. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consecration[edit]

Hi All,

I think that the Consecration of Russia should go in the public section as the action was taken by the Catholic Church, and more broadly the Catholic population (pope explicitly asked people to participate).

@InfiniteNexus: reverted this on the grounds that the Vatican is a state. While it definitely is, the Church and Catholics more broadly is usually considered not governmental (including on Wikipedia). Given that the consecration wasn't a state-like action (no other governments are leading consecrations) and in no way relates to the governing or leading of the Vatican State, I believe it shouldn't be considered a State Reaction, otherwise any action taken by a Catholic Authority must also be considered a government action.

Please comment your thoughts so we can gain consensus. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. How about we just change the section heading to States and churches? Because putting the Catholic Church next to city demonstrations and computer malware doesn't seem right to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy with this. Will do this now. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assassination attempts on Zelenskyy[edit]

While Assassination attempts on Volodymyr Zelenskyy are certainly a horrible thing, Zelenskyy is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, which would seem to make him (and Putin) military targets, in the case that they cannot be detained by the opposing military forces. There have been suggestions that some of the Ukrainian forces have been deliberately aiming to kill Russian generals, though we don't have an individual article on that. Any objections to removing Assassination attempts on Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the War crimes section? It should be shifted to a new subsection of Military engagements, with a name like Assassination attempts on military leaders. Boud (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that assassinating a head of state is a war crime, but assassinating military leader isn't.
See: https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/03/29/assassinate-vladimir-putin-legal-moral-arguments/
Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the Crikey article is subscription-only. Assassinating the head of state of Costa Rica or another country without a standing army would presumably be either a murder (without a war context) or a war crime (in a war context), since without armed forces, there's no Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. However, in countries with armed forces, Commander-in-chief generally lists the head of state as the commander-in-chief, i.e. legally the top military leader of the state, although there's a list of cases where the commander-in-chief role is dispersed or not held by the head of state. Boud (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops sorry. Look, I am happy with your proposal. Personally, I think either works, but no reason not to have everyone happy and get consensus. Feel free to go ahead with your changes. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Boud (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superscript[edit]

@Pinoccappuccino: I don't think we should be adding superscript designators, much less emojis, to this navbox. We already have List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine denoting the status of each battle. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been three days and Pinoccappuccino has yet to respond, are there any objections from other editors to removing the emojis? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I support removing them. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too big[edit]

This navbox is getting rather large. I'm thinking we may need to switch to ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) to ease navigation, any thoughts on that? You can see what that would look like by changing Navbox at the top of the template to Navbox with collapsible groups, and then click preview. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As in Template:COVID-19 pandemic? I just clicked "show" on all the panels there - really impressive. It's hard to think that it was barely two years ago when people were still wondering whether to take the topic seriously. Anyway, the idea is good: I think that switching to ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) will be justified soon, although maybe not quite yet. Some of the individual sections of Template:COVID-19 pandemic are bigger than our whole template here. See what others think ... Boud (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The COVID navbox is an extreme example (wow, that Locations section), navboxes don't need to be super humongous to use ((Navbox with collapsible groups)); an example of that is ((Marvel Cinematic Universe)). Still, this is a pretty major change, so I'll wait for more consensus before doing anything. Optional step, but someone will also have to go into each of the gazillion articles here and add a |selected= parameter to uncollapse the relevant sections. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The navbox continues to grow exponentially in size. @Boud, Super Dromaeosaurus, Tomorrow and tomorrow, Elijahandskip, and 唐吉訶德的侍從: do you support or oppose switching this navbox to ((Navbox with collapsible groups))? Examples can be found here and here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support it. To avoid there being too many things to un-collapse, though, maybe like:
  1. "Overview" (with "Related topics" at the end of this group)
  2. "Military" ("Military engagements"; "War crimes" [regular quotes, not scare quotes])
  3. "Reactions"
  4. "Impact and key people" ("Impact" has three lists of people, so this seems like a reasonable grouping to me)
Or "Related topics" as the fifth group. Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well ... the point of switching to collapsible groups is so there aren't so many subgroups-within-subgroups. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the point is making it not take up so much space by default? Four collapsible groups takes up less space than seven. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you say "space", do you mean visually (appearance) or technically (storage)? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean screen space. I browse on a small monitor and often zoom in due to poor eyesight, so my perspective on layout matters is based on no having too much going on on the screen. Four groups would remain my preference over seven, but please don't let that stand in the way of a change if there's consensus for seven. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keeping the current seven groups seems best to me. War crimes should not be included in military engagements, because by definition, war crimes are not military actions. Seven is the The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two for cognitive chunking, so it's a good choice for typical humans. Boud (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support switching to ((Navbox with collapsible groups)), but I think that the only stable option for choosing which top-level groups to collapse by default is to collapse all of them - as in the case of both Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe and Template:COVID-19 pandemic. Otherwise we'll waste endless energy arguing which sections are the most significant.
I was thinking of proposing that the first group - Overview - be by default uncollapsed, but a lot of the subgroups of this are the prelude and background, and I'm not even convinced that the articles in the General subgroup really give us the best articles for an overview. I also think it could be quite difficult to do better in choosing which articles are most "general" and give the best "overview". Depending on a particular RS's way of seeing things, different aspects can be seen as the most critical. This is not completely subjective, but it's also far from objective. I think keeping the first group uncollapsed would be distracting from what many people are mostly looking for.
So my proposal is to collapse all the sections by default.
To handle someone will also have to go into each of the gazillion articles here and add a |selected= parameter to uncollapse the relevant sections, I don't mind opening a gazillion browser tabs and editing in (almost) parallel, so if others don't do it, I would probably have a go at some of this work - it doesn't sound too difficult. Boud (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend only uncollapsing the section which the article belongs to, i.e. International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be |selected=Reactions, Ghost of Kyiv would be |selected=Impact, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: so apparently, the |selected= parameter can be invoked with just ((2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|name)). I've just added in abbr values to designate what to put in the name field. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not split this task among several users? I'm sure some people here would compromise to add the selected parameter for every page listed on each of the sections of the template. I can compromise myself to one of those sections if needed. Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recognize and admit that the template has become quite large. I would argue that it's still readable, but I also admit that the different sections on the template have different widths that make the template unpleasant to read overall. So... weak support. Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak support, we are bordering on too big but I am not yet critically concerned. After all there are pros and cons to switching to ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be consensus to switch, so I'm going to go ahead and implement the change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And  Implemented. To start us off, I've added |Overview to all of the articles in the first row (General). Further instructions can be found in the template documentation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red link[edit]

Hi InfiniteNexus, why did you remove the link to REPowerEU without explanation [1]? A very large number of pages listed on this template exist probably because of red links that were first placed here. Just today I added a link to Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief [2] and there's already a draft of it [3]. I don't know if this is some kind of policy but per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, all rules preventing improvement of the Wikipedia may be ignored, and I don't see how removing a red link from where a lot of red links have gotten their pages is an improvement. Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beause redlinks are discouraged in navboxes, and WP:NAVBOX dictates that there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Topics such as the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief have interlanguage links to actual articles, so it is acceptable to retain those. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:CREATEFIRST, "Adding red links to navigation templates is tolerated when the missing article(s) are part of a set or series, and the template mostly consists of blue links to real articles (or article sections)." Adding this red link on the navigation template may end up on its creation, which is a net positive for Wikipedia. Many red links that I've added here were created probably in at least some cases as a result of it. Removing the red link doesn't really help this template, Wikipedia nor any user on it, and the policies don't say there the article must be created in all cases with no exceptions, so I don't see the point of this. Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still iffy on this, but go ahead and add it back if you think it will encourage readers to create an article for it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you, I've re-added the link. As a compromise, I will not add another red link into the template without an interlanguage link. I still have another idea of an article that could exist that could be added into the template, so I'm proposing to wait for a reasonable amount of time (say, 1 or 2 weeks) to see if someone creates the re-added red link. If this doesn't happen, take everything I said above as irrelevant. Super Ψ Dro 21:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
REPowerEU was created, so I've added the other red link I thought of [4]. Super Ψ Dro 17:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you may have noticed, I haven't checked in in a while, and was completely taken aback today when I was greeted with over a dozen redlinks in the navbox. While I'm more lenient toward the interlanguage links, I really think we shouldn't be adding in redlinks that do not have an article on any Wikipedia site. There is WP:NORUSH to create any of those articles, and should anyone find those topics notable they will naturally create it, and then we can add them here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No response after more than 4 days, so removing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

War crimes by who?[edit]

@Osunpokeh: In this edit, you introduced "Russian" into the short name (displayed name) for war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While the overwhelming majority of the likely war crimes we have documented in the various war crimes articles are attributed to Russian forces, not all of the crimes are attributed to Russians, and almost none of the legal cases have their scope restricted to Russians or the Russian Federation as the suspected perpetrator. If you want to rename the main war crimes article to Russian war crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then please propose that on the talk page there rather than making a change here. However, my prediction is a WP:SNOW rejection of the proposal: it would not be encyclopedic to restrict the scope that way. Boud (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022[edit]

I suggest adding a mention of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4 article under Reactions->United Nations->Emergency special session as the other 3 resolutions are. This one is very important and notable, so it should be there. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022[edit]

I want to add a Wikipedia article link in the War Crimes, Attacks on civilians, the Wikipedia article is called Shelling of Ivano-Frankivsk, and it involves the attack on a civilian airport, a coal factory, and a warehouse, so I personally believes it belongs there, and, again, I'd like to add it. RowanJ LP (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: @RowanJ LP: this article is already linked in Military engagements > Other > Bombing of Ivano-Frankivsk. From a quick read-through it looks thats the target of the bombing was infrastructure, rather than people. Is there any evidence that this was a deliberate attack on civilian targets? TGHL ↗ 🍁 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read a citing in the March section in the Shelling of Ivano-Frankivsk, I thought it stated that in the airport attack it tried to harm civilians leaving, but it was actually more trying to prevent, you are correct, it was to bomb the infrastructure more than to harm people, sorry about that! RowanJ LP (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022[edit]

change the Russian occupation of Kharkiv from 'ongoing' to 'previous', owing to the end of Russian occupation after the Kharkiv counteroffensive. ArqueKappa (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022[edit]

add Kyrylo Budanov to the Ukrainian key people list as the HUR (Main Intelligence Service) has played a large role in this war. FiveStars1234 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing stuff and some fixes[edit]

This article (2022 Rivne missile strikes) is missing.

I'd also suggest moving the strikes on Zhytomyr to the military engagements part, as well as removing some duplicate strike stuff (Vinnytsya, Dnipro, etc in the war crimes part).

SnoopyBird (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit War[edit]

There has been an ongoing edit war for almost a month that has been changing this template which is on many highly viwed articles (2022 russian invasion of Ukraine, Battle of Kiev, Kherson counteroffensive, etc.) at least once a day. Could we please have a discussion rather than continue to revert edits. Starship 24 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See response on the article talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate prelude sub-template[edit]

We should separate the prelude stuff from the overview sub-template (is that what you call it?) into its own sub-template because there are a lot of really specific links in there (like Stanytsia Luhanska kindergarten bombing). They are too specific for the overview tab. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support—the prelude should have its own section within the template. Compusolus (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox changes being discussed on main page for Russian invasion of Ukraine at this time[edit]

This Infobox is used on several Wikipedia pages and changes are currently being discussed on the Talk page of Russian invasion of Ukraine at this time. All comments welcome from editors. Pinging Compusolus and other interested editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2023[edit]

Revert all recent edits by User:Teterev53 to this template, as they were made to match his mass moves, which have now been reverted by WP:RMUM. 90.255.19.247 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit extended-protected)) template. Cherrell410(t · c) 15:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2023[edit]

could Naval warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine be added to "General" under "Overview" in the navbox, near Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Aqeccac (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 01:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023[edit]

Slovakia should be removed from the Reactions/Other Countries section. Calling the 2023 Slovak parliamentary election and Robert Fico's mere existence the country's reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine makes no sense and doesn't fit in with the rest of the listed examples. MMK229 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 00:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2024[edit]

Hello! Please add 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine to the War crimes -> Attack on civilians list in the navbox.

It is a massive attack, and even though the article is probably still too small, the event absolutely deserves an article because it was one of the biggest missile strikes so far. MonX94 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: Please request again once the merge request is resolved. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2024[edit]

Please can the 2024 Korochansky Ilyushin IL-76 crash be added to the "Related" section of the navbox. Aqeccac (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories