Talk:Battle of Kupiansk

Not finished

RF forces still hold the eastern part of the city. https://t.me/intelslava/37437 Shhssh (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although events are still pretty recent, and there isn't much to go on, I would endorse adding an "Immediate Aftermath" section, to detail stuff like this. Atomic putty? Rien! 17:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to merge. While the opposed editor's concerns regarding article size are valid, the merge adds minimal content to the target page, and most involved editors question whether or not the events described even constitute a "battle" in their own right. Thus the justification to maintain a standalone article becomes slim. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a merge of Battle of Kupiansk to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive.

The substance of this article is very small – it seems as if there was little significant or notable fighting to retake Kupiansk. I see no reason why this should exist as a standalone article apart from the larger military operation.

It is also worth mentioning that the few (three total, by my searches) mentions of "Battle of Kupiansk" in reliable sources refer to events that took place in 2023 and 2024: 1 2 3. This means that the term "Battle of Kupiansk" for this 2022 event is yet another neologism coined by a Wikipedia editor.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we can't keep merging battle articles into massive articles for campaigns, instead campaigns should be broken up into more battle articles. Scu ba (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scu ba: Your point about the size of articles is well taken, but by my count, a merge of Battle of Kupiansk to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive would, in effect, only extend the target article by the equivalent of a few sentences. Most of the "background" and "aftermath" sections would likely be more appropriate to merge into Kupiansk, if it is not already there.

To your second point, I could argue that it is not our place as editors to define "battles" where reliable sources have not already done so, and on the contrary, creating such articles any time control over any city changes may be undue and even OR. It is worth noting that the 2022 recapture of Kupiansk has not been named as the "battle of Kupiansk" in sources or even recognized as a "battle" in the first place, and that the content of the article has remained minimal since it was first created. All the best. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a revision of Battle of Kupiansk, here is the information I propose adding to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive:

Identifying the Ukrainian soldiers who raised the flag over the Kupiansk city council as the 1st Mech. Btn./92nd Mech. Bde., using a source from this article
Emphasizing the fact that the 16 September capture of eastern parts of Kupiansk put Ukrainian forces in control of the entire city

Regarding the rest of the page:

Background section is taken almost verbatim from Kupiansk and there is no need to include any more background on Kupiansk in 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive
The most notable portions of aftermath section could be merged to Kupiansk

@Scu ba, I hope this addresses your concern regarding massive articles for campaigns. The truth is Battle of Kupiansk has almost nothing to offer 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive and will not substantially enlarge it. If you have any other concerns about this proposal please let me know. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the nominator has clearly demonstrated that this content would be better suited to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. The article contains very little information on the "battle of Kupiansk" itself. The idea of a "Battle of Kupiansk" may also be improper SYNTH – of the three sources linked in the nomination, the first two seem to base their use of the term on social media posts, so I wouldn't consider them evidence that "Battle of Kupiansk" is a term or an concept used by reliable sources. If someone can come up with three sources that use the phrase "Battle of Kupiansk" (or reasonable variations) and demonstrate significant coverage of the battle, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The majority of the article either discusses background or aftermath information (much of which is not at all related to the battle), while there are only a few sentences actually about the battle. As with many other of these articles, none of the listed sources in the battle section seem to actually call the event a battle, so it is much better suited in the larger article. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (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.