Talk:Battle of Lyman

Merge to Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)

NOT MERGED

The result was an unanimous SNOW keep. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

We really shouldn't have an article on every single engagement in this war or every time some village or even town changes hands. Focus on the bigger operations. A lot of this look slike non-encyclopedic "point scoring" (or would that be "score keeping"?) So can we merge this to Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)? Volunteer Marek 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We don't have articles on every engagement which resulted in a town changing hands - for instance, we don't have a page for Battle of Kreminna or Battle of Svitlodarsk (2022). But Lyman is an important railway junction, is in an important position for the overall development of the battle of Donbass, and has received significantly more coverage than other town of similar size that were taken in the past weeks. I would say it deserves its own page. --Potionkin (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The battle for Lyman has been reported on notably enough to have its own article. Also, due to the distance between Lyman and Sievierodonetsk, the two battles are unrelated. EkoGraf (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman is not a village nor a town, but a strategic city. This article should be kept. Xurum Shatou (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The city is on another place far from Svierodonesk, also Russian attacks seems to be over right now. In the case of Svierodonesk seems that fighting will take many days or weeks more. Different scope of engagement, other units, geographically different. Don't deserve to merge.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lyman is more towards Sloviansk but Sievierodonetsk is not. In other words, different objectives here. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the battle of Lyman is well documented in RS and has notability due the strategic position of railway junction and deserves its own page. And by the way, there is some battles (i.e. Battle of Voznesensk or Battle of Volnovakha) that have much less notability and RS mentions and have their own page. DrYisus (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - What the actual frick, this battle has nothing to do with the battle of Severodonetsk CR-1-AB (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Lyman has nothing to do with the battle of Sievierodonetsk therefore it shouldn’t be in the same article. Also, the battle of Lyman was a very important battle with Lyman’s railroad junction so that battle needs it’s own article. 216.113.34.244 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close This is WP:SNOW, but Lyman and Sievierodonetsk are separate battles, though a part of larger offensive in Donbas. Mario Jump 83! 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - One more thing, Lyman is in Donetsk Oblast while Sievierodonetsk is in Luhansk Oblast. No reason to be merged. Xurum Shatou (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree that not every place should have its own battle, and this one isn't comparable to other examples where their notability is clearer. But the proposed target is not appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Xurum Shatou and MarioJump83 Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Battle of Lyman was a distinct and important event separate from the ongoing Battle of Sievierodonetsk. Physeters^✉ 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose The Battle of Lyman and the Battle of Sievierodonetsk are two entirely different battles while still being apart of the Battle of the Donbass and the Eastern Ukraine offensive. It also wouldn't make sense considering Russian troops already have full control of the city of Lyman and there is no fighting in that city, while the same can't be said for Sieverodonetsk. Cryw 9 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose and close. The two battles are entirely separate things. No reason to be merged. Also this is WP:SNOW. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 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.

Splitting proposal

I propose that the article be split into separate pages called First Battle of Lyman and Second Battle of Lyman, akin to the pages for the first and second battles of Donetsk Airport. The second battle has been going on long enough that there's enough content in its section to make its own page as a notable subject. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody made the pages, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Dawsongfg (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I don't think that's supposed to happen during an ongoing discussion. This happened before with the "Siege of Azovstal" page, but I don't remember what exactly guidelines say should happen in this situation. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge @Dawsongfg, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: I don't think this should have happened during this ongoing discussion either, but nonetheless First Battle of Lyman and Second Battle of Lyman articles both exist. Since those articles are becoming well-edited and to avoid further confusion between all three articles, I hope a speedy merge can take place soon. Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what where? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're keeping those two articles then we have to merge the contents from here to there, so we need a bit of time to do that (for each battle) or we'd delete those two Dawsongfg (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, @Dawsongfg, @AnAustralianHistoryBuff, @GramCanMineAway, @Jebiguess, @LiterallyBiHTvrtkoI, @STeamTraen, @Thelisteninghand, @BigRed606, @Gaardemouk, @EkoGraf, @Baba Mica, @Flalf, @Eastfarthingan, @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Dynamo128, @LordLoko, @3PPYB6, @Panam2014, @1234567891011a.

Oops, that's my bad for not being more clear 😅 I am proposing we merge this article into the now existent articles First Battle of Lyman and Second Battle of Lyman since the consensus here was overwhelmingly positive for a split anyways. While very odd that these articles were made with this discussion still ongoing, it is done now, and I feel the quicker a merge happens, the better. This would be to avoid confusion between all three articles and the editors rightfully confused on which one to edit, as it doesn't make sense to have two articles about the same topic(s). Furthermore, both of the first and second battle of Lyman articles are already in use in Template:Campaignbox 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I'm sure other major templates by now. Pinging all editors in this conversion to weigh in on their opinion. Johnson524 (Talk!) 08:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

..Redirect now? One lightly oppose and 20 billion support. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as of September 23 So far it's not necessarily big enough for it, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, nor is it a tooth fairy. Nonetheless, there's more action in the area, so this vote will more than likely change. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Big thing now. Also speedy merge because somebody already made them. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the gains north of Lyman are gradually becoming huge now, in a few days a second battle of Lyman page would be necessary in my view AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with splitting the article, as the two battles are separate engagements, and will have massively different impacts on the war. GramCanMineAway (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support With how the Ukrainian push in the region has been going, I think it is ok to split the articles now so that 1) this article doesn't get too long, and 2) to more accurately refer to which battle of Lyman whatever linking article is discussing. Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC) See speedy merge comment above.[reply]

Support the first battle is notable by being the last Ukrainian defense north of the Siverskyi Donets, and the second is notable for being the first major battle after the Kharkiv counteroffensive. Jebiguess (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that most of the information in those sections are about encirclement attempts. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not attempts, successes.* Dawsongfg (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support They are two distinct battles, both quite important. LiterallyBiHTvrtkoI (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The second battle is turning into something very big. STeamTraen (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minded to Support BUT have to say it is not easy to find all the relevant WP articles on the war in Ukraine, and splitting this one (agree in principle) just adds to the multiplicity. I've suggested on other pages some kind of index. I am speaking of a reader arriving at the front page and entering terms into search. This article, as far as the current situation is concerned, is also duplicated somewhat in the Kharkiv counteroffensive article. I have just updated both with the recent liberation of Novoselivka. It's obviously important to show that occupied areas have been liberated so if there is a split the two need to be linked.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support having two separate articles makes complete sense and less confusing. Also the second battle is seeming to be on larger scale than the first one. BigRed606 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as September 29. Great points in a favor of split were already made: the second battle is on a different scale and most certainly will have much greater impact. Gaardemouk (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Standard Wikipedia practice is that each notable battle has its own article. We never mix up two different battles into one article. This is a repeat of the same situation with the article "Battle of Izium", where an editor changed it to "BattleS..." claiming there was a second battle, while in fact it was subsequently established there was no second battle. However, in the case of Lyman here, it is evident a second battle exists. EkoGraf (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The second battle is an extremely large battle. Certainly in the phase after the Battle of Lysychansk and the Battle of Sieverodonetsk, this is the biggest battle in the second half of this year. There are maybe three battles being fought in Donbass (Battle of Avdiivka, Battle of Bakhmut and Battle of Soledar). However, those three battles last too long and mostly the Russians are the attacking side that attacks in doses for months with positional battles. At the same time, after breaking through the Russian defenses in the Kharkiv oblast, the Ukrainian forces blunted the Russian offensive operations in the Donbass with strong counterattacks, arriving quickly to unblock Slavyansk and Seversk, thereby dragging large Russian forces north. Not to mention the Kherson operation, which ended disastrously for the Ukrainians, but tactically stretched the Russian defense, which broke at Balakleya on September 6. — Baba Mica (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Two separate and distinct battles. Flalf^Talk 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Same as above - given the ongoing events, does anyone else agree the new article be named as the Lyman pocket? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support these are actually distinct and notable on their own. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightly Oppose I don't think the first battle is really significant enough to warrant its own article, if it had been on a similar scale as the second one then sure, but in my opinion a single article can cover both battles adequately. I don't feel strongly about this, however, so if the consensus is that we should have two articles then so be it. --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per the reasons provided by the other userts.LordLoko (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – those two articles have already been created. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 00:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport - it's two very different battles in two very different phases of this war.1234567891011a (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems there is already an article called Second Battle of Lyman but it doesn't seem to link up with this one. LordLoko (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - two entirely different battles. Months apart to start with, and probably different units and different commanders. Teun Spaans (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also a First Battle of Lyman Teun Spaans (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Glad someone looking after that! I gave up yesterday once I realised. Cheers.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So we already have a First Battle of Lyman and a Second Battle of Lyman. So this article is already split. What needs to be done is a check if all info in this article is also present in those two articles. 11:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support As noted the article has already been split, so this article needs to be merged with those two and then deleted.Yeoutie (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North, south, east, west

It's getting difficult to work under these headings as progress is coming in all directions, and cited media reports don't fall into such convenient geography. I also wonder if we should make the timeline type of presentation into a more readable piece of text in the future. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

strange notice

At the top of the talk page is a notice {{Ds/talk notice|e-e}} that only a select group of people may work on this article, and that every administrator may sanction wikipedians working on this article.

Why is this notice on this talk page? Shoulnt that be on the main article?

Also, this article has been edited multiple times in the last few days, even volunteers with a red profile page. so no one really cares? Teun Spaans (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]