Talk:Battle of Berdiansk

Request to rename the article Battle of Berdiansk

I believe "Battle of Berdiansk" better follows the conventional name of this operation. Thespearthrower (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I support this rename suggestion. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't oppose changing the name back to "Battle...," but compared to the other battles, this seems like there was not much confrontation to qualify as a battle. i changed the name to "Attack..." because there was not enough references about what happened during the occupation, and i was worried that if it was kept as a battle, it might get deleted not relevant enough, as it happened before. RGoes (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No real fighting took place so I don't think "battle" is appropriate term. City offered virtually no armed resistance. "Attack" or "Takeover of" may be better descriptions. EkoGraf (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

+ Iftor (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

I did not make my edit with the paragraph deletion, but I wanted to respond to the previous edit and cancel it. Just what the hell did I do? Iftor (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for the Saratov landing ship airstrike

Based on a discussion on the Talk:List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I am opening up the splitting proposal to let editors voice their opinion about that. I am not dropping support or opposition for the split, just starting the discussion. What a split would mean: It would split the section about the airstrike into its own article, and leave a sentence or two about the airstrike, with a wikilink to join the split article with the parent article. A split would also mean the airstrike would qualify for the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was what the discussion that started this was about. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that this event is independently notable of the entire battle, which itself is just barely notable it seems. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I recently crated a stub on this subject at Berdiansk port attack, and much to my surprise, there have been multiple attempts to suppress the creation of this article. Redirecting here makes absoluutely no sense, as this supposed battle ended on february 26 according to the infobox. The attack on the landing ships happened almost a month later, so these are clearly seprate events and should be treated as such. As to its notability, this has been reported on by multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], "one of Ukraine's biggest successes" [3]. This si Russia's first naval loss of the war and its importance should not be understated. As this french source says, " l’Ukraine a réussi une attaque qui, par son audace mais également sa dimension symbolique et ses conséquences opérationnelles, marquera profondément cette guerre." [4], which i'll let you translate... --RD47 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A better redirect target may be Southern Ukraine offensive then. Curbon7 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I endorse this comment. Additionally this is attack is noteworthy for its strategic significance for viability the Russian logical support for the Russian Southern offensive as this attack will put the port out of action for at least several days while the wreckage is cleared thus hampering Russian resupply efforts. Currently the only other way to resupply troops on the southern front is via a rather circuitous through the Crimean peninsula

Flaviusvulso (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirect the whole battle article to the Southern Ukraine offensive. Sources do not support there was an actuall battle for the town. Only one incident of a civilian being killed during the takeover. As for the ship attack, its much more notable than a supposed "battle" that no RS support ever happened and would have more sense to have its own article. Another option is to rename this article and make the ship attack its main subject, while the takeover of the port is delegated to a "background/prelude" section. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with EkoGraf that the "battle of berdiansk" was largely a fiction that existed only on wikipedia, and the only notable event was the destruction of the Saratov. This article should therefore be be focused on that and renamed accordingly, or redirected to another article that coners the subject -RD47 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

+1. I was preparing to just boldly merge it myself last week, but then this incident occurred. Curbon7 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters too much, but I would like to point out that two IP editors, were determined to keep the Berdiansk port attack as an article, with both ignoring messages about this discussion ongoing, so this topic is a controversial topic, per se. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip:: The "controversy" came mostly from your own edit warring in your efforts to suppress the creation of that article. In fact you violated WP:3RR in doing so and exposed yourself to sanctions. You might want to respect the rules if you want to avoid getting blocked. Regards. --RD47 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply if the reversion is anti-vandalism or anti-disruption, which it appears to have been. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This was clearly a content dispute and had nothing to do with vandalism. That you can't tell the difference is...concerning. Regardless, I trust that this discussion has established that the sinking of the Saratov is worthy of independent coverage and that this can now be improved without further edit warring. Regards. --RD47 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Raoulduke47, actually Curbon7 is correct that it was disruptive editors. The first IP editor removed it saying use the AfD process, which is when I reverted them and let them know on their talk page about this discussion. They undid my talk page edit with the edit summary of “nonsense”, meaning they knew, but did not acknowledge that this discussion was ongoing nor legitimate[5]. The other editor was just a pure vandal, ignoring two talk page messages about this discussion[6] and even saying I was a vandal[7] and wanting to bypass this discussion using the AfD process over this ongoing talk page discussion [8]. The editor who protected the page even agreed with me that it did not need to be content forked without a discussion, which was ongoing. I am concerned that you believe the IP editors were in the right and I was in the wrong, since that does in fact agree that the article should have be created, ignoring the discussion to make it an article, which at that time, had one comment that it should not be created (by Curbon7). I would recommend you review some guidelines to refresh on procedure. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Порт Бердянська 24 Березня 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

What?

What happened? Iftor (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)