Jump to content

Talk:Snake Island campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Elijahandskip (talk), PanNostraticism (talk), and NHCLS (talk). Nominated by Volunteer Marek (talk) at 07:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure what that means. Volunteer Marek 10:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That DYK doesn't post anything that could be deemed "current", which this is, but rather than say no outright, we could almost put it in reserve to be used sometime after if you want. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement in DYK that featured articles must be on “old stuff”. It seems the article fully meets all the criteria. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is a requirement that they be stable and that posting them to the MP is not likely to be perceived as a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Things this is far from meeting, in quite obvious ways. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication that the article is not stable? And if your concern is neutrality, then please state which parts are non-neutral, rather than bringing up irrelevant non-criteria (like "it's new"). Volunteer Marek 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it is new, I said it is current, that is very different. Surely you have heard of "current events" at some point. And I did not say any part of the article was not-neutral, I indirectly said that posting a hook about it could be perceived as a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Surely you can comprehend that putting a nominative resistance slogan of one side in a current war on the front page of a website claiming neutrality (no support for either) could give the opposite impression? I cannot take your continued "but"s seriously, there is nothing hard-to-grasp here, especially if you try to undermine my explanations by misquoting them. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your condescension (you obviously knew exactly what I was referring to), no, putting an article on a widely covered event does not violate Wikpedia's neutrality (whether it can be "perceived" as such by somebody is irrelevant). This is also a new argument you're making - your original one was that it couldn't be used because it was on... "current" (better?) events. You're moving the goalposts now and inventing new excuses. Volunteer Marek 00:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you're on about, and no, being "current" (you know, the banner at the top of the article) is still my argument, I have just had to waste far too long over-explaining that to someone who has decided they will refuse to get the point so they can ignore reasonable objection. A current article, which if you don't know what that means you should certainly not be editing or nominating one for DYK, is inherently unstable and inherently contentious. ITN gives a neutral blurb, but doing any more than that is unwise. There are multiple facets as to why, which I tried to explain, unfortunately to someone who has decided they will trip over the simple word "current" and claim boo changing arguments and that's wrong rather than actually respond (spoiler: even if someone did in fact change argument, that would just mean multiple reasons to not post this, and you would have to counter all of them, rather than say they can be ignored for providing multiple reasons). If anyone here is being disingenuous it is certainly you. Kingsif (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, again with the condescension, apparently intended to obscure the fact that nothing you say has any basis in policy. Look. I've been here about 12 years longer than you, and I stopped counting my DYKs after the 100th one. There's absolutely nothing in the criteria or in any policy that says that "current" articles are "inherently unstable". In fact this article has been pretty stable, aside from some minor changes and improvements. But this isn't actually what seems to bother you. As you you kind of let it slip above, the real concerns appears to be that this article isn't "neutral". Because... .... ... ? Apparently because reality isn't "neutral", the way you want it. This happened. It's notable. It's covered in a plethora of reliable sources. It's got a catchy hook. It's long enough. It's new. It satisfies all the DYK criteria. Your only objection here boils down to a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it and let someone else review it. Volunteer Marek 09:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have said my piece, and your presumed seniority is still not a valid response. I am not condescending you, I am trying to make the issues you refuse to see so obvious you cannot deny them - no, you just ignore them, ugh. If you were to tweet "did you know Ukrainian border guards told the Russians to go fuck themselves", people would assume you supported Ukraine quite strongly. The DYK hook does not need to be phrased like that, but posting during a time of explicit tension between the nations (i.e. the subject is current!) is just not helpful. DYKs, of which I am no more novice than you, buddy, have been refused for less. As an additional element, I must sadly inform you that having a current banner is indeed inherent (at least, assumed) instability, in that it is one reason to fail a GAN on stability grounds. It is not that I don't like anything; I have been working on the article as much as you and would like to see it recognised. No, I am trying to protect the DYK section. It is so useful to encouraging editing but often disparaged and any scandal could get some MP editors to more firmly suggest removing it for a full-column TFA. Nothing I have pointed out is baseless or unreasonable, and I have to assume from your latest reply that your actual opposition is because of some superiority you feel here, so you will just reject every valid argument in nonsense ways. Best to drop the stick and wait for someone else to chime in. Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree/Oppose. While the Ukrainians guards were brave, this is a small part of a much bigger conflict. I also agree with Volunteer Marek. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 15:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”Disagree” is not the way that DYK process works. The question is does it satisfy the DYK criteria? Volunteer Marek 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: title changed to Attack on Snake Island. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done

Overall: @Volunteer Marek: Unless I'm missing something, I think this needs a QPQ? Also noting I de-dab'd the link to Ukraine, added a link to Russia (we should link to both countries or neither; either linking both or linking neither would be fine), and updated the link to the Snake Island article now that it's been moved and bolded it.
{{Current}} is not one of the WP:DISPUTETAGs, and so is no reason to reject the nom.
Stability isn't a DYK requirement, but even if it were, this article shows no recent signs of edit warring or instability.
I see no problems with the neutrality of the hook: stating the mere fact of the soldiers' response ("GFY") doesn't imply, in my view, any support of the soldiers on the part of Wikipedia. By comparison, we have right now these hooks on the main page:
  • "... that Bianca Baptiste was Tottenham Hotspur's top goal scorer during their promotion—and then they dropped her from the team?", which doesn't imply that Wikipedia is saying in its own voice that she should not have been dropped from the team.
  • "... that the Louis Micheels House was called a building of "great significance", but the new owners wanted it gone?" doesn't imply that Wikipedia is saying it disagrees with the owners.
  • "... that the captain of the warship CSS Baltic stated that she was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow"?" isn't anti-CSS Baltic or imply any criticism of the warship by Wikipedia.
These are three hooks on the main page right now, but the archive is filled with such examples. I don't see ALT0 as pro-Ukraine or anti-Russia; it's simply relaying a verified and interesting fact.
Add a QPQ link and ping me and I'll give it the green checkmark. If any editor disagrees at that point, I think WT:DYK would be the place to resolve the disagreement. Levivich 04:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: You know your comparisons are making a false equivalency, right? The context and knowledge bases are not comparable (tensions heightened during actual war, readers care less about things they have not heard of before). But, even so (or perhaps as a more equal comparison*), a couple days ago we ran a hook about Demi Lovato getting into an internet feud, appended "- and lost", and Lovato's Twitter fans were not happy, thinking Wikipedia was choosing to be insulting. *If people who are aware of Demi Lovato did not like the perfectly neutral and factual account of their internet "war", how are people who are aware of Ukraine and Russia going to react to something about a very real war? I feel confident in saying that the twitterverse, at least, will react if this hook gets onto the main page any time soon. Maybe that won't have any affect on DYK, but maybe it will. I would like to be better safe than sorry. (I also disagree with your stability assessments, but let's cut to the chase: waiting until a war is over before shilling fun facts about it is just common sense.) Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a fine DYK entry that meets all the requirements (except QPQ as the reviewer outlines). Lagrange613 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about lack of QPQ. I got unexpectedly very busy in real life. I will try to complete it later today. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek and Lagrange613: I'm happy to provide a QPQ if needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like this as a DYK subject. My concern is that DYKs are usually surprising – usually things that the reader doesn't know – and the fact in ALT0 has been widely reported and is still being reported in the media. I feel that something a little more surprising would better fit the 'interesting' criteria (rule H7). Suggestion what if we did an ALT about the postage stamp? According to Commons (here) Ukrainian postage stamps are in the public domain, so we could even use it in the picture slot (though we would likely have to wait for the stamp to be officially issued - the NYPost source says it will be published "soon"). A hook about the stamp might also do away with any objections from using the f-word. Proposed alt below (feel free to rework it). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: That Ukraine issued a postage stamp (pictured) commemorating the attack on Snake Island only a month after the event? (Note: hold per WP:CRYSTAL.)
Okay, this has been going on a bit long. I'm donating Template:Did you know nominations/Mattea Conforti as a QPQ and pinging Levivich to wrap up this nom with ALT0 (or ALT1, given that this nomination has lagged so long that we'd look like Internet Explorer). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ALT1, do we have any confirmation that the stamp was actually issued? Because right now it seems it is just a plan.Anonimu (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any news updates since about March 13–15. The Ukrposhta website's online store stamp catalog, which appears to be chronological, only shows one stamp released since February 2022. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TLC. I've re-checked the article as of today, and made a few minor edits (removing old tags, updating a source). ALT0 approved. I'm not approving ALT1 only because I cannot find a source that says the stamp has been "issued" (as opposed to planned to be issued). Levivich 17:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip, PanNostraticism, NHCLS, Volunteer Marek, and Levivich: I was going to promote ALT0, but I found a discrepancy in the article and the hook. The hook says that the quote is "Go fuck yourself, Russian warship" but the article says it is "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" (note that the article's quote is wikilinked). Which quote is correct, and should the quote be wikilinked? I pinged those listed as the creators of the article, the DYK nominator and the reviewer who approved it. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad I should have caught that. I just double checked and the hook is wrong; it should be "Russian warship, go fuck yourself." Thanks for flagging it. I corrected ALT0 above. I also added the link to quote. Is this a double DYK? I don't know how that works. Levivich 17:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: by double DYK, do you mean if "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" is also a DYK? In this case, the quote's article was not nominated for DYK as far as I know, and it was created in Feb. 26 so it is outside of the one-week creation window. If you would also like to bold-link the quote to be a second DYK, then you will need to obtain permission on WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted ALT0 to Prep 6. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2022

[edit]
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 to 2022 Snake Island campaign. Consensus that the article has since evolved from the initial Russian attack and capture of the island, and this is not just an occupation. Thus, the alternative 2022 Snake Island campaign is more viable. The presence of Battle of Fidonisi and Battle of Kyiv pages support having 2022 in the title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Battle of Snake Island (2022) – A battle occured Panam2014 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Alternative to Snake Island Campaign or whatever one of the titles were. Dawsongfg (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Alternative to what I stated in the Article Names section: Russian occupation of Snake Island. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this proposal as this article is different from the other 2022 Russian occupation articles. Super Ψ Dro 23:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have one for Odessa oblast even though they'll never reach? Dawsongfg (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dawsongfg, not that I am aware of. It should just be Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk. Kyiv Oblast isn't needed since majority of the occupational time is captured in the various battle articles and none of them besides Chernobyl had much occupation information. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Chernihiv Oblast? Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless the others are about oblasts, this is about an island in one oblast. Though still major, not the entire oblast. Dawsongfg (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either "2022 Snake Island campaign", "Battle of Snake Island (2022)" or "2022 Snake Island attacks" in that order. I don't think the current title should be kept in the long term. Super Ψ Dro 23:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternatives - Snake Island campaign or Battle of Snake Island, there haven't been other Snake island campaigns or battles, so there is no need to add the year to title.--Staberinde (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Battle of Fidonisi. Super Ψ Dro 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fidonisi" is Greek. "...which in Greek WAS" clearly that means something. Dawsongfg (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fidonisi is now Snake Island. Someone before 2022 could have searched for the 1788 naval battle using the modern name instead of the Greek one. Perhaps confusion could happen now that there was another engagement related to the island. It's not too far-fetched. Note that out of all the battles for Kyiv, all but the 2022 one use "Kiev", still we use a disambiguation for the only one (the 2022 one) that does use Kyiv. Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Dawsongfg (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to "battle" because that was hardly a battle. "Occupation" is also not good, because it is no longer occupied, but the operations around it will probably continue. I would support the current title as a good descriptive title, and would only suggest to remove "2022". My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sumy Oblast isn't occupied anymore, yet, we have an article titled "Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast", so no reason why "occupation" wouldn't be good due to not being occupied anymore. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the use of "battle" implies prolonged conflict rather than, as I understand it, an attack by Russian ships on a military outpost. I think it could be renamed to "2022 Russian attack on Snake Island" or something else to convey that it was more of an offensive and less of a battle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed its scope ever since the 24 February Russian attack because Ukraine started bombing Russian positions in the island, for months. So that proposal is unviable. "or something else to convey that it was more of an offensive and less of a battle" I think "campaign" could result useful here. Super Ψ Dro 08:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed; it wasn't a single battle. I also oppose occupation, as the article isn't limited to the occupation.
I'm not satisfied with the current title, due to WP:CONCISE, but it is a suitable description; something related to campaign, as Super Dromaeosaurus says, might be preferable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ugh. This is possibly the dumbest title this article could be under. "Campaign"? Like pincer maneuvers, outflanking, Napoleon sending in the Imperial Guard while Rommel rolls his tanks across the deserts of North Africa and Hannibal marches his elephants across the Alps? Come on people. This was a small island that got shelled, got shelled some more, got shelled some more, eventually one party left and the other took it and then it got shelled some more. Can we please undo this ridiculous closure? Volunteer Marek 22:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No party left, they were defeated and captured. Maybe not a Campaign, but certainly an Operation with opossing forces engaged. On the same topic, and more to the point i was about to ask : Why is there so many disinformation on the Ukranian soldiers section? It was finally clarified by all parties involved the number of soldiers, what happened to them, how, etc etc. As pointed out at the end of the very same Section.
Whats the point of repeating all the disinformation that came previously? Wont be sufficient to mention the Ukranian side disinformation attempts with the sources and leave it at that? 2803:9800:9996:74EC:4D:234C:82C2:8B39 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian occupation of Odesa Oblast" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian occupation of Odesa Oblast and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Russian occupation of Odesa Oblast until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 04:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2023

[edit]
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: Procedural close. Proposal must be made by an extended confirmed user per WP:GS/RUSUKR. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Snake Island campaign → ? – Not a campaign. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a series of operations, so technically I think it can be called a campaign. I see some use of “battle for Snake Island” too. I think resolving this properly requires surveying how sources refer to it.
But per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended confirmed users may not participate in internal project discussion on the subject, including requested moves, so unless such an editor wants to pursue his RM it should be closed.  —Michael Z. 14:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

youtube video

[edit]

Why is there a link to a youtube video? I thought that only open-source material can be linked to on Wikipedia? ~~ Ami-de-la-Terre (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snake_Island_campaign&oldid=1233714320"