This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Politics and law C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. NATO C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This isn't a discussion to split the article now, moreover when we should split it, like setting an actual time to split this article, my reasonings for this discussion is as follows:

1. The current size of this article is 357,927 bytes, or about 350 kilobytes. In certain computers or other devices the sheer size of this article could cause one's device to crash or the page will simply not load. It shouldn't take a genius to realise that that is an inherently bad thing, especially on an article with this scale of importance. This was my primary concern when I initially proposed a split back in April.
2. In a previous discussion as to whether or not to split the article, an editor pointed out that ~1000 sources was about as much an article could handle, this article is already at nearly 600 sources.
3. This also isn't an issue of navigation, a template could be easily whipped up to allow people to access the more recent events that are on a separate page. you know kinda like those album infoboxes that have {{next_album}} or something at the bottom, but at the top of the page. I know it's hard to visualise but I'm sure it's easy to make.

Therefore, I'm proposing an August|September split and I would very much like you to consider this. I have chosen these months as they are particularly far away from now (so therefore no one can pull out the politicising card), both are border months in different seasons and September is really easy to group with October, November and so forth, even in other languages.

I would like to stress again that this is not a discussion to split the article now, rather it is to set a time where this article can be split to allow a more efficient wiki, while also making sure navigability is accounted for.

I have been calling for a split since Mid-April, it's now Mid-June, if we don't agree to something soon this article could break. so I would like you all to discuss this please, thank you

P.S. I'm sorry if my English has been hard to understand, I am a native speaker though.

Great Mercian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are we just going to ignore this? Great Mercian (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree a split is necessary. WP:Length#Size guideline seems to be pretty clear that an article of this size should be split. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TulsaPoliticsFan: this isn't about splitting the article, it's instead about setting a time to split the article Great Mercian (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support setting a time to split the article, because a split is necessary and size guidelines are pretty clear that it should be done for an article this size. Sorry if my first post was unclear. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So can you suggest a exact boundary to split? Great Mercian (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to split in August. Above comment says "I'm proposing an August|September split". TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry to ask you this but do you mind pinging some people so they can approve this? Great Mercian (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this article can and should be split into one article for each month.

Ђидо (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's way too short. Maybe every six months? Dawsongfg (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently support the general idea but Oppose the proposed date Mid-late July would be better. Then again all somebody needs to do is just look for the day they're looking for.. It just depends on what happens. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think each article should have 3/4 months. Miglix519 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One article for prelude, february, march and april. One for may, june, july and august. And so on Miglix519 (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

27/06/2022 - Russian forces have been detected stealing grain from Ukrainian silos in the occupied areas, transporting them to Russia on stolen Ukrainian trucks and passing it off as Russian grain.^[1]

Would it be appropriate to break this down into separate articles for each month of the conflict, using this page as the main hub to get to each month? AgentMulder303 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion above on splitting, please contribute there so we don't have multiple threads on splitting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this source show? Dawsongfg (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding capture of Lysychansk - provided sources are kinda unreliable in my opinion. As a person which knows russian language, those sites are basically "no-names" and are only reposting informations from RIA, TASS and other RF services. Not mentioning linked tweet which is clearly pro-russian. Someone should verify it, as no other pro-western or neutral source has even replied to those claims. 150.254.61.175 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, BBC is a reliable source (as long as it isn't the Russian one), no? Dawsongfg (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they should be removed for now, at least until we get an unbiased one. Dawsongfg (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters haven't verified yet, but Russian brass saying they've destroyed 2 himars systems. Does anyone have a reliable source? 103.58.74.215 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might've given a source right there.. Even though it's from June 27. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We only have the ones about Russia CLAIMING to do so and Ukraine denying those claims. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11/07/2022 - Starting from 11/07/2022 and for at least the next 10 days, Russia has closed the main gas pipeline to the European Union for "annual maintenance purposes".^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there less obscure sources mentioning this with independent analysis? If not it may be best to move it here meanwhile. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Are they all wearing white armor and can't ever hit what they're shooting at? Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's The Daily Beast. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about this, sure it's been said, and reported on. But it really is too contemtable for words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a Russian conspiracy theory this one is also pretty stupid. Does Russia think that telling its troops that they are fighting against artificially boosted soldiers will improve their morale? Maybe this story is being spread by Russians who are secretly against the war. I guess that would be a meta conspiracy theory. John Sauter (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]