Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas

Improvement and possible deletion

Assessing these timeline article honestly, I think they would be deleted if they went to AfD. Clearly a lot of work has gone into them, but on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE these articles aren't appropriate for Wikipedia in their current form. @Pietadè: and @DagosNavy:, do you have any intention to change these more into encyclopaedic articles rather than a running daily account of the conflict? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

One of the pages have already survived an RfD on the basis of your arguments, it was largely discussed before, please read here and here. By the way, keep in mind that these are not ordinary articles but chronologies, the reader would not deal with the narrative in the same manner that he reads a prose article. See MOS:LISTS; there is nothing there discouraging daily timelines or deeming them unencyclopaedic.--Darius (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it may not survive another AfD if all the articles are nominated for deletion given the detail in the main article about the war. There is very weak selection criteria, any daily press release is here regardless of how notable it is. So at least the non-notable entries should be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The timelines present the reader with updated statistics on casualties, weaponry, locations, etc. and are quite popular (between 2,000 and 5,000 views per month, perhaps one of the reasons behind the RfD rejection). The one-month pages have already solved a lot of problems (pages' length, readability). If you follow the criteria that the main article conveys most details about the conflict, then all timelines and chronologies dealing with wars (Syria, Irak, the Troubles) should be set for deletion as superfluous. Same thing for lists like those of shipwrecks in WWII; they are full of details on daily basis (see here), and nobody (until now) has questioned their inclusion in WP. Expanding information about any notable subject, even if splitting the topic in various articles, is one of the main goals of Wikipedia.

"Notability" is a WP guideline about articles and topics, not specific contents; active warfare in eastern Europe is quite notable.

Did you read the past discussions? I explained there why WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS don't apply here.

Before proposing the deletion of sourced info (You yourself have acknowledged that at least some of the contents are notable and worth of inclusion) you must try to fix the timelines problems first per WP:PRESERVE, an official WP editing policy. Any concrete ideas about?.Darius (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@DagosNavy: I'm not talking about deleting the article, I'm saying there needs to be a reduction in the amount of entries on these timelines. This would make them more like the timeline articles for other wars and conflicts. The fact that we need to split them into months shows that there is far too much detail in them. Clearly not every day there is something notable that happens in Donbass. Instead of a daily summary, we would be much better able to convey the information with a weekly summary. It's mostly just sporadic shooting at each other, and that's not even getting into the verifiability of these reports. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I took some time to ponder before answer, and I still remain convinced that much of the problems related to the timelines are already being resolved by splitting. Since WP is plenty of overpopulated categories with no limits (other than technical), and the aim of WP is to give everyone "free access to the sum of all human knowledge." there is no rule preventing us from having 15, 25 or 50 articles about a notable subject. I also think that daily entries presented in an ordely and regular form from three different sources (Ukraine, DNR and LNR) don't break WP:INDISCRIMINATE, nor WP:NEWS, since the info shows concrete statistics, not mere trivia, unconfirmed scoops or breaking news. (BTW any timeline will necessary show fresh news if regularly updated).

The issue about sources' reliability is not a problem under WP:PARTISAN; non-neutral sources, if "the best possible sources for supporting information", are reliable "in the specific context" and with the proper attribution, so the reader can judge beforehand that a source is a biased one.

All of this doesn't mean that I am not open to a potential weekly summary, as long as that summary would contain a weekly account of ceasefire violations, type of weaponry (in general), specific incidents involving the use of heavy/banned weapons, armoured vehicles and heavy artillery, civilian casualties and military casualties. Major incidents like attemptings to cross the demarcation line or massive destruction should also been included. I deeply respect, however, the hard work done by Pietadè, thus I would be reluctant to erase his contributions without his consensus, even if these edits would be reflected in the summarized form.Darius (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally against deletion, but I feel that there are readability issues. Being a frozen conflict, there's so much that's repeated on a daily basis that it's difficult to pick out the differences; some of the important changes which should stand out become lost in the repeated details. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. If the daily reports can't be summarized into broader statements, it might be worth considering the use of a table so that the reader can see and compare the data more easily. It might also be good to add to the leads of these articles (some of which are close to 20,000 words) to provide an introductory summary. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Combatants of the war in Donbas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Timeline of the war in Donbas (2014–2022) → Timeline of the war in Donbas
• International reactions to the war in Donbas (2014–2022) → International reactions to the war in Donbas

– The titles without the parentheses would be WP:CONSISTENT with War in Donbas, the parent article for both. There's no ambiguity at the destination titles or need for parentheses, as consensus found at Talk:War in Donbas#Requested move 17 October 2023. HappyWith (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Appropriate per WP:CONSUB, and could be moved without discussion.  —Michael Z. 03:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I did actually try to move it on my own, but it didn’t work for technical reasons, and a technical request was denied, which is why I started this discussion. HappyWith (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Uncontroversial move supported by consensus. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support No similar war happened before. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.