Talk:Battle of the Siverskyi Donets

Requested move 16 May 2022

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: Consensus to not move: Editor consensus is to not move this article. No consensus on article title: No consensus has been reached on the best article title. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of the Siverskyi Donets → 2022 Donets incident near Bilohorivka – The Donets river (its article is titled Donets in Wikipedia, not Siverskyi Donets) has been crossed by Russian forces before, near Izium and near Kharkiv. See the map of the invasion we have on Commons [1]. Thus, this article's name is inappropriate, and readers who haven't heard of this story might not be able to realize whether this is a general article about engagements in the river during the invasion or not. Also, this was not a battle, Russian and Ukrainian forces did not directly fight each other. So I propose this title which I believe is more precise both in location and in time. I've had several other ideas, such as "2022 attempted Russian crossing of the Donets near Bilohorivka", "2022 Donets river incident near Bilohorivka", "8–11 May 2022 Donets incident" and "8–11 May 2022 attempted Russian crossing of the Donets", but I believe "2022 Donets incident near Bilohorivka" is both the shortest and the most precise title we can get. Super Ψ Dro 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol, if “Russian and Ukrainian forces did not directly fight each other” how did 80 Russian armored vehicles get destroyed? Tooth fairy? Volunteer Marek 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's so hard to find editors with a normal tone these days. They are all full of sarcasm and irony. And no, Ukrainian forces did not directly fight Russian ones here. Throwing something at someone is not fighting them. See equivalent articles we have such as 2022 Chornobaivka attacks (originally named "Battle of Chornobaivka" in fact, which people ended up opposing), Yavoriv military base attack, 2022 Deliatyn attack... They were attacks and strikes done with artillery. Not battles. Super Ψ Dro 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"Throwing something at someone is not fighting them." Nope. Even if the Ukrainians destroy the Russian battle group by chanting magic spell, it's still a battle. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"2022 incident at the Donets near Bilohorivka" or "2022 incident at the Donets river near Bilohorivka" might be better ideas or at least more natural. Super Ψ Dro 16:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel those names are too long and windy. Maybe something like "Attack at the Siversky Donets river" or the "2022 Siversky Donets crossing incident" or a combination of those. For now, the failed crossing is arguably the most important event that has taken place at the river, so I believe putting Bilohorivka in the title is redundant. Jebiguess (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, per Romanization of Ukrainian, this article is titled wrong. We generally use the BGN/PCGN romanization method, meaning it should've been Seversky Donets. Besides that, I think there are a few potential titles: (1) Battle of Bilohorivka (pros: definite geographic location; less vague than proposed "incidences"; cons: battle happened near this town, not necessarily at it). (2) Battle of Bilohorivka crossing (Pros: More accurate summation of the battle; Cons: Vague). I feel like describing them as incidents is vague and out-of-practice when compared to the other battles of this war. I think my personal preferred is my first suggestion, Battle of Bilohorivka. Curbon7 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Opposing this, as the "battle" did not happen in Bilohorivka proper, and I don't think it can be called a battle, thus my incident suggestion. As far as I know, Russian troops tried to cross the river but Ukrainian forces bombed their bridges or something. No direct confrontation between Russians and Ukrainians. No way that can be called a battle. This is a pretty unique article anyway, I didn't see another article of an army failing to cross a river after being bombarded by its enemy, so we shouldn't abide too much by common and standard practice, as this is pretty much its own case with no other equivalent in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah you're right, the article I originally read on this is a pile of shit [2]. The original NYT article [3] makes it clear that this was artillery strikes. Striking most of my original statement. Curbon7 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Artillery strikes are most definitely a “battle”. Volunteer Marek 19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've given you above examples of articles about artillery strikes not titled as battles. And there's more, Chuhuiv air base attack, Millerovo air base attack... See also the Oxford Dictionary's definition for a battle [4]: "a fight between armies, ships or planes, especially during a war; a violent fight between groups of people". Super Ψ Dro 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

So unless it has people poking each other with spears it’s not a battle? This one most certainly involved “a violent fight between groups of people”. It’s just tha these groups weren’t in the same location cuz, you know, 21st century. Volunteer Marek 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any engagement in the invasion of Ukraine that did not happen with both armies at the same location the Wikipedia article of which calls it a battle? Super Ψ Dro 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

1) There were direct confrontation of ground troops and tanks.

2) There were Russian crossings in 3 different places during the week-long battle.

I'm adding the sources. It was a battle, not some artillery duel. Raymond Saint (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, there were three pontoon bridge erections or attempts at that one location, and you can see the remnants of all three in the aftermath photos. There were also other crossings at other locations, by both Russian and Ukrainian forces. Important not to confuse them. —Michael Z. 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7: The article on Siverskyi Donets spells it like in this article. Whatever is the chosen romanization method, I think the use should be consistent. Mindaur (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a battle. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no. Show me a SINGLE source that calls this an “incident”. Volunteer Marek 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

[5] [6] [7]. But, if you oppose "incident", we can look for alternatives. Super Ψ Dro 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

How about "attack" or "strike" near Siverskyi Donets? Mindaur (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to scroll through the entire article to find it using the word “incident”. “Catastrophe” is probably more common and it’s right there in the headline. Volunteer Marek 00:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think describing this as a 'battle' is a tad dramatic. This more or less fits in as the wider Donbass offensive. I think it'd be better described as the '2022 Siverskyi Donets river crossing', 'Siverskyi Donets river attack' or the 'Bilohorivka river crossing' etc. This isn't the first repelled attack on a river crossing in the Donbas. I've seen images of both sides attempting river crossings and then them being destroyed or equally as large military engagements. If we described every river crossing as a battle or every major set of airstrikes as a battle, we'd have a never ending list of articles. I think this should be renamed and included as a part of the Battle of Donbas (2022) article.ThePaganUK (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

” or equally as large military engagements” <— this is simply not true. Per sources, this was a single deadliest engagement for the Russians in this war. But as far as the name goes I guess something like “Siverskyi Donets crossing attack” could work. Volunteer Marek 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This wasnt a battle, there wasnt any reported fight between forces, more like other artillery/air strikes. Like the mykolayiv barracks attack which is not considered a battle. DrYisus (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support a move but, come on, battle is exactly accurate, and “incident” an unnecessary euphemism! NYT refers to the “battlefield” and the Guardian calls it a “battle.” This article uses the term many times in its “Battle” section and it is a rather good description. It precisely meets both of Oxford’s definitions of a fight between armies and people. It was a military effort to cross the river followed by a mechanized thrust to take Bilohorivka, and it was halted and repelled with remarkable losses by artillery and the tanks of a mechanized infantry formation over several days (not that there isn’t such a thing as an artillery battle). I think the bridge crossing is defining, but the location and axis of Bilohorivka also identifies it specifically (sources say “at Bilohorivka” and “in Bilohorivka”). Suggested title: battle of Bilohorivka, failed river crossing near Bilohorivka, attempted bridgehead in Bilohorivka, May 2022 river-crossing attempt at Bilohorivka. —Michael Z. 14:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Battle near Bilohorivka"? -- Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I considered a title with "Bilohorivka" in it but after looking at all the sources it seems more of them mention the river rather than the village. So, the question is, from point of view of a reader who has heard something about this and wants to find out more and they come to Wikipedia, what are they most likely to search for, Bilohorivka or Siverskyi Donets? Since it seems more sources mention the latter, it made sense to go with that per WP:COMMONNAME. Volunteer Marek 20:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  The village is a point, while the river is a very long meandering line, and there are crossings conducted at other points (possibly east of Kharkiv by the Ukrainians in the last day or two). So “river crossing at Bilohorivka” is more recognizable, precise, and concise than “river crossing of the Syverskyi Donets” (see the WP:criteria). A search will find the text in the article anyway, but once there’s another notable river crossing, this article title will steal eyeballs from that one until we rename it. —Michael Z. 23:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I guess that’s okay, but a (I can’t remember which) cited source refers to it as the “crossing the Syverskyi Donets river at Bilohorivka,” because it is the nearest village to the crossing point and military objective of the crossing —Michael Z. 22:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Current title just fine. I was looking for this article and thought to search for "Battle of Siverskyi Donets river" and while not exact match it was close enough. The proposed title is long and complicated and not something anyone would think to search for. Titles are simply placeholders for finding things, they don't have to literally exactly correct all the time. -- GreenC 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, I had the same experience. Also "battle" seems to be much more appropriate to the events than a "fire-fight" or "artillery barrage". 46.188.128.194 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: CNN source (well, a video) which shows that it was a battle, involving direct engagement: [8]. --Mindaur (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Stick with the current title. Ultimate decision on whether this was a Battle (and hence will Battle Honours etc be awarded) will be a matter for the Ukranian battle honours committee. That will take months (or years) to decide. Multiple sources now credit infantry action, aircraft, artillery and drones. This was notable combined arms effort. AWHS (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is not only whether this was a battle or not, but that the title is vague and more engagements have occurred on the river. Super Ψ Dro 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now at least. The "incident" nomenclature does not seem to be taking hold; it is not our duty to decide what the name it will become known by should be. We could debate forever about what the "right" name is, but that is a waste of time. If the present name is inappropriate, a better alternative that can be corroborated by usage outside wikipedia should be presented: I don't see that happening. And I also agree with Mjazac that 'incident' has a distinctly euphemistic connotation. --Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a battle, with real, moving people on both sides. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Important comment: ok so I see that most people are against removing the word "battle" from the title. I myself am considering this more following the expansion that this article was given after this RM was started. But still, Battle of the (Siverskyi) Donets is ambiguous. We could keep such a title if it was an established proper name for the battle, but there's no evidence of that having happened yet. So we need to disambiguate it somehow.

There's several options, like "Battle of the Donets near Bilohorivka" or "May 2022 battle of the Donets". Going down the line that there's no proper name for the battle, we can go outside the typical "Battle of" titles and go for something like "May 2022 battle at the Donets". Not that I necessarily support this but I want to state this could be a possibility. Alternatively, editors may consider that there's no need for disambiguation and that the title should be kept as it is.

By the way, why are we using the name Siverskyi Donets? The river's Wikipedia article is Donets. I've seen editors oppose the proposed move without commenting on this, but I think that it should be changed and that this RM can't be closed as no consensus without addressing that. Super Ψ Dro 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Following the media, how about River crossing attempt at Bilohorivka, Failed assault river crossing of the Siverskyi Donets, or variation? Does the media about this event use Siverskyi Donets or just Donets?  —Michael Z. 23:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It could also be in the style of something like "crossing attempt", yes. I am not more in favor of any. And the sources seem to mostly use Siverskyi Donets. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's just make a redirect anyway. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

• Spekkios, I disagree with the result you've given this RM. It's clear that there was no consensus resulting from it, but most editors focused on arguing that the incident here was a battle, not that the article shouldn't be moved. There were also a few editors who proposed several possible alternatives to the current title. I think "no consensus" would be a more accurate way of describing the outcome of this RM. Specially now that I started another RM. Super Ψ Dro 14:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'll change it to no consensus. --Spekkios (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia's victory.

Hello. When trying to cross the Seversky Donets River, Russian troops came under artillery fire, suffered losses and this attempt failed. But then Russian troops forced the river anyway. Russians already had two large bridgeheads by May 20, and by May 30, the entire bank of this river, except for a small area in the area of Severodonetsk, is under full Russian control. 212.34.48.215 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s not true. The Russians lost this battle decisively. They never held the bridgehead after these crossing attempts, have not attempted this location since, and have not yet crossed the Siverskyi Donets between the east side of the Izyum salient, about 60 km west of Bilohorivka, all the way to east of Sievierodonetsk, about 25 km east. —Michael Z. 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2022

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.

---

Result:
No consensus. See below no agreement at this time to alter this article title. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of the Siverskyi Donets → May 2022 battle of the Donets – The last RM has ended in nothing, but I still argue that the title is not precise and that there's far better possible options. We are already in late June and I haven't seen this event receiving much attention lately. I think people in a few years could see the current title and not be sure what to expect. It could be an article about WW2, the 2014 war, the 2022 invasion, maybe even some Mongol invasion.

So it is clear that there's basis for calling this a battle and not an incident or similar. A "near Bilohorivka" type of title is also problematic since the article has been expanded ever since the last RM was started and it now includes other attempted crossings on other villages not particularly less notable than Bilohorivka.

Thus, I propose May 2022 battle of the Donets. The month of May has passed and I believe there have not been other notable events at the river during the invasion, so adding the month and year to the title would suffice for precision. Adding only the year would not be enough as I can tell from memory right now that on April there was fighting going on in the river after the Russians won in Izium. I would also like to drop "Siverskyi" from the current title as the river's name in Wikipedia is Donets. Furthermore, "Siverskyi Donets" is the name in Ukrainian but the river also passes through Russia. May 2022 battle at the Donets is another option, less proper name-like and more natural, and it could enter into consideration. However, I don't want this RM to end in no consensus again so I will not be striving too hard for this, and "May 2022 battle of the Donets" remains as the primary proposal. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Support - Russians had crossed the same river and havd captured Izium successfully, so disambiguation in title is required. Crashed greek (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think there is an article or article section about that with which this title is ambiguous, but there is a WWII battle: see Battle of the Donets —Michael Z. 19:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title is terrible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any other alternative to solve the issues the current title presents? Namely the fact that it uses a name for a river different than the one its own article has, and that there have been several other engagements on this river. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of the Donets (2022) would be the usual format. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's been more fighting in the river in 2022 that didn't happen in May, that's one of the main points of this RM. And having the article titled something like Battle of the Donets (May 2022) could suggest something like there's other articles of fighting on the river in that year (which did happen, but they aren't notable and independent enough from other engagements to have their own article). This format has anyway already been used in other articles about the invasion, see 16 March 2022 Chernihiv breadline attack (a title achieved after extensive discussion) or 11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv. I am not a fan of how unorthodox and frankly ugly the title I proposed is, but I think it's the most practical. I would like to know if you have any comments on this practicality regard. Super Ψ Dro 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Support only if it's battle Per Crashed geek. Also there's them crossing at what was the remaining places in Luhansk Oblast successfully after they captured Sievierodonetsk as well. There was something on one of the early battles regarding "of" in the titles of these pages, though in case you didn't know. Dawsongfg (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That one was in July so it wouldn't affect the current RM. And yes, I am aware of the "of" issue you mean, but I thought that since this article is different from the regular battle articles of this invasion we could apply exceptions to get a more natural (in my opinion) title. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment  Disambiguation is only necessary if there are other potential links to articles or article sections. Yes, there have been other crossings of the Siverskyi Donets by both sides, I believe in the same general area of operations and during the same wider offensive, and also outside of these. No, I don’t think the conventions require title disambiguation. On the other hand, the current title is vague, and fails to meet the WP:CRITERIA of precision and especially of recognizability (despite some scope creep evident in the comments, by my reading the article is still about the ultimately unsuccessful multiple attempts of an assault river crossing at one location over several days). But I am not convinced the proposal satisfies these inadequacies. —Michael Z. 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any potential proposals? I was going to also add to this RM a title along the lines of "failed crossing of the Donets" as you had proposed in the previous RM, but most editors seemed to want to keep the "battle" part in the title. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I don’t feel strongly about it. But I still think only a descriptive phrase with more specific elements actually identifies it: either the location near Bilohorivka, the fact that it was an assault river crossing, the fact that it was multiple attempts or that it was a dramatic defeat, etcetera. Battle of Bilohorivka? Failed river crossings near Bilohorivka? Battle of the Siverskyi Donets at Bilohorivka? —Michael Z. 03:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I first proposed using Bilahorivka in the title because the article only include that one particular crossing attempt and I also thought Bilahorivka was a bigger town for some reason. However the article was later expanded to cover the attempts in other localities and I saw Bilahorivka doesn't stand out from the rest, it's just another village, so I think including it in the title gives it undue weight. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the article is about the three sets of pontoon bridges attempted at the one location during an attempt to cross and capture the geographic location of Bilohorivka (no matter its size). That’s clear from the lead paragraph. If you expand the article’s scope, then you are either talking about the attempted encirclement in the Donbas or the entire eastern offensive. There is no larger set of river crossings that comprise a single battle. Other river crossings are mentioned for context about the significance of the Siverskyi Donets and Russian objectives. It could be expanded into an article about the river as an obstacle and crossings during the campaign, but it is currently not that. —Michael Z. 15:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article states that the crossings were attempted at three localities, Bilahorivka (place of the most famous incident of the three), Dronivka and Serebryanka. Super Ψ Dro 16:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought that was giving the broader context as there were crossing attempts by both sides much farther away, but now I see they are the next two towns west of Bilohorivka (I am sure I read that there were three bridges attempted at Bilohorivka, and there seemed to be remnants of three ddouble bridges in the photos). —Michael Z. 19:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Four separate bridges blown up at the Bilohorivka crossing site.[9] —Michael Z. 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I fully agree with Necrothesp that the proposed move target is not a suitable article title. I also agree with Michael Z that since there is no other notable battle of the same name (yet), "May" is not necessary, and we can always move the page again if that changes. I would support "Battle of the Siverskyi Donets (2022)" or "Battle of the Donets (2022)". However, someone should find reliable sources to prove that any of the names currently being proposed have grounding in scholarly or journalistic works, and I strongly recommend that Super Dromaeosaurus does so before proposing any further moves on this page or elsewhere. Currently it seems like we're making up names on the fly, with a quick glance over the references showing that none of them use a similar term to what we have here, so we could end up causing citogenesis. If I have missed something, I would be glad to be corrected on this last point. Toadspike (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Post move request talk

• Battle of the Donets (2022) has been mentioned as a potential article title by several editors, there has been no opposition to removing "Siverskyi" from the title in both RMs and several editors have recognized the problem of precision the current title has. Therefore, even though both of my proposals which aimed at complete precision failed, I will move this article to "Battle of the Donets (2022)" so as to at least get something out of these RMs, which have shown that this title has been within consideration of several users. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Reverted back to Battle of the Siverskyi Donets – after two no-consensus outcomes, suggest a wait of a few months before attempting to garner consensus for a new page title. Thank you for your bold rename, Super Ψ Dro, and I am always willing to discuss such boldness, as in BRD. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    Since there seemed to be dissatisfaction with the current title, I don’t feel it’s necessary to wait for months, but since there was a lot of good-will discussion about the details, a formal RM seems appropriate to me. FYI, I prefer the use of the river’s full name which seemed to be widely used in coverage of recent events, so I’d like to be convinced to favour the change. —Michael Z. 19:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    FYI, I just did a Google News search covering the last week. Manually checked results:

    • Siverskyi Donets: 3
    • Siversky Donets: 2
    • Siverski Donets: 1
    • Siverskiy Donets: 1
    • Donets (river): 1 (All but one[10] are surnames or misspellings of Donetsk)

     —Michael Z. 20:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    There is always some dissatisfaction with current titles in RMs. In this case had there been consensus against the current title, then I would have closed it that way. There was no consensus for or against the current title as well as no consensus for or against the proposed title. The waiting period is not etched in stone. There is no policy nor guideline that tells us how long to wait. The reason we suggest a few months is that past instances have shown that the longer the wait and the more patient we are, the more likely that a new RM would succeed. It's just a good idea to wait and while waiting, to work on finding good new arguments and on making the old arguments stronger. Thank you for the info! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

July 8 attempt

They tried for Bilohorivka again, with similar results. Possibly at the exact same location. Sorry, I don’t have reliable sources yet, but here’s some photos:

• BATTLE BRIEF / BILOHORIVKA On 8 JUL, UKR forces engaged a Russian crossing of the Donets north of Bilohorivka. Indications & Warnings reported that RU units on the south bank would be exposed; they were destroyed by UKR artillery strikes. RU losses are judged as serious., Twitter.
• #Russians tried to cross the river near #Bilohorivka and threaten #Slavansk from the north., Twitter.

 —Michael Z. 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

Please add the Redut (PMC) to the list of Russian combatants in the Infobox, as it participated in the battle, with correct link to the PMC Redut article. Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct formatting: PMC Redut Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I checked the Meduza link you supplied and there is no mention of "Redut" in the page. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey It's "Redoubt". It's just a misspelling on their side. Zerbrxsler (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. @Zerbrxsler I'm unfortunately not experienced enough to feel confident making this edit without a clear link between Redut and Redoubt. Novaya Gazeta does have an article referring to a "Redoubt" but doesn't explicitly make the link of the spellings. I'm going to re-open this request so another editor with some experience in the space can weigh in. Lizthegrey (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: While checking for reliable source for the connection between Redut and Redoubt, this cannot be done. -Lemonaka‎ 13:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I found two sources confirming that Redoubt and Redut are different spellings and the same entity. Zerbrxsler (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lemonaka Lizthegrey, this looks good to me. For clarity, I would add an Efn. What do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. Lizthegrey (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lizthegrey (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

In infobox Units involved section, Ukrainian side:

Ukrainian Armed Forces

• Ukrainian Ground Forces
  • 17th OTBr
  • 30th OMBr
  • 1st Mechanized Batallion
• Ukrainian Air Assault Forces
  • 80th ODShBr Fang Luo (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: A little hesitant to lean even further on the WP:NEWSWEEK secondary source which in turn leans on a primary account by a single twitter account (kms_d4k) with no fact checking or verification of the detailed claims. Can you find another source? lizthegrey (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it already depends upon that source anyways. Hrm. lizthegrey (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)