Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Creation

This is the first timeline I've begun on an on-going military action (vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic), so those with more experience in such matters, feel free! We can use your expertise! kencf0618 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good so far, great job on this! Looking forward to more details being added to the timeline. IMiss2010 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My main concern starting off is that there isn't bloated -there's a plethora of detail to parse, lots of disinfo, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft started

I started a draft for the Draft:List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, similarly to the WW1/WW2 ones. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! This timeline is a running tally, so to speak, and the first reports of nearly any major event are usually confused -and for good reason! kencf0618 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Almost all the news pertaining 25 February come from either Gazeta.ua or RIA Novosti. I'm trying to find alternative sources, but couldn't find anything else for some entries. Can the two sources above be considered reliable? P1221 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#State-sponsored_fake_news_sites

Gazeta.ua no; RIA Novosti I wouldn't trust offhand, but only when if and it can be verified by other sources.

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/?s=RIA+Novosti kencf0618 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I looked at that page and found RIA Novosti, but I didn't find gazeta.ua as unreliable source. --P1221 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Animated invasion map

I made an animated invasion map here and put it on the page. I think here is a good place to discuss this map and future edits to it MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian supply line issues

So, apparently, the Russians have been having "logistics issues" with gas and oil (<2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine>). Can somebody add that? ModMasterFlash (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It may not be supply, it may be part of Russian battle doctrine, where they hold up 30 miles from their intended battle and regroup, see this an involved discussion on the [1] Task&Purpose Youtube page Larsobrien 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Plethora of data; UTC format; social media usage

I began this timeline (my third), and I am overwhelmed. Nonetheless minutiae such as UTC matter; that is what we are here for. Social media usage by heads of state matters -and we are here for that too. Pandemics move slowly; wars move fast. I can no longer keep up with the BBC, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, the People's Daily. Wars move forward, and are understood in retrospect... kencf0618 (talk)

WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. 'Tis a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff. And like it or not, we are one of the first drafts of history, so we might as well get good at it. kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not chronicle history (see WP:OR). It simply summarises the consensus of reliable sources as they chronicle the relevant events. Please be very careful. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This isn't a matter of OR, it's a matter documenting major events UTC day by UTC day. A timeline is perforce a chronicle of history (the word is a cognate of "chronology"). That's our granularity, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Updated information for timeline. February 27th. Canada closes airspace to Russian flights.. 107.179.177.144 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies - Turn protection off

Turkey is blocking Russian ships from entering the black sea not intercepting them. If you're going to protect a page at least get the information correct. 86.3.205.235 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I.e. they're not being boarded? kencf0618 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

In the *Lead up* section, the date is written 17th January 2020, while it should be 17th January 2022 102.222.69.165 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it. RGoes (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Date of Luhansk and Donetsk "People's Repbulics" recognition by Russia appears to have been 2022-02-21, not 2022-02-22. Evidence: YouTube video of President Putin's announcement of prior Russian Security Council decision date-stamped in webpage source code 02-21 1840 GMT / 2140 Moscow local time. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjMnTo85S4A Kirkers95 (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing the mistake out. P1221 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Change second sentence of the article from, “ This is list of key events in that conflict.” to “This is the list of key events in that conflict.” OR “This is a list of key events in that conflict.” Twomatters (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the input P1221 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 5th correction

Let's try to avoid biased material? For example, the article pins the blame on the Russian side, whereas DW news states that both sides blamed one another for the humanitarian evacuation corridors failing... [2] (Lilic (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Yeah I agree. What do you think of this. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

You’re missing a verb for March 5 entry:

Soon after this however, the ceasefire ended with Russia and Ukraine each other for the breakdown. 172.117.159.0 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (2)

5 March Changing "the ceasefire ended with Russia and Ukraine each other for the breakdown." to "the ceasefire ended with Russia and Ukraine (blaming) each other for the breakdown. MaxiKitty (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (3)

3 March Change "passed a law allowing the seizure of assets owned by Russian government or nationals." to "passed a law allowing the seizure of assets owned by (the) Russian government or nationals." MaxiKitty (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022 (4)

President should be capitalized here as it is referring to a person.

28 February "French (president) Emmanuel Macron and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken," to "French (President) Emmanuel Macron and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken," MaxiKitty (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done P1221 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Izyum

On March 7, 2022, Russian troops defeated the 81st separate airborne assault brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and took the city of Izyum near Kharkov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZZ2022 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Cyberattacks

Cyberattacks such as from Anonymous, NB65 or Conti should be included here as they are one of the main dimensions of the conflict. Failing that, we should make a separate page to catalog these.2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably only the attacks with the most "real world" damage should be included in this timeline. It certainly bears watching -we are in uncharted territory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-russia-ukraine-cyberwar-could-outlast-the-shooting-war-11646456442?mod=Searchresults_pos3&page=1kencf0618 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV by User:Ентусиастъ

User:Ентусиастъ has an issue with Russian Ministry but we've used it many times before. And a lot of users aren't against it. I know they're not always accurate but that doesn't mean they're always inaccurate. And the Ukrainian government or military hasn't been always accurate either (like entry of Belarus' forces in the war). Can you please adhere to WP:NPOV? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we give Ukrians claims space, so NPOV means we with Russias claims space. We do not take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0 Images and videos here

https://www.facebook.com/mvs.gov.ua

Victor Grigas (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Map update?

The animated map is very informative, particularly for this page, but is now a couple of weeks out of date. Is it possible to update it? 90.201.239.212 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Did Russian troops really land in Odessa on (or before) 24 February?

As of 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC), the section on 24 February contains the following sentence:
"Ukrainian officials said that Russian troops had landed in Mariupol and Odessa."
Three sources are cited for the sentence, but two of them do not mention Odessa; only the NYT says/said "Russian troops landed in Odessa, according to Ukrainian officials" (predictably not linking to or clarifying any source beyond "Ukrainian officials", lest readers might be tempted to leave the NYT website for something closer to the source). But the cited NYT page undergoes updates, and the cited archived snapshot apparently does NOT support the statement, likely because it is too new or too old. So I suggest somebody change https://web.archive.org/web/20220222221302/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html to https://archive.ph/8nld5 as the latter does contain the relevant statement.

Also, I think it would benefit readers if somebody included in the sentence whether the alleged landing "in Odessa" turned out to be true or false, as the supposedly landed troops seem to have evaded all mention in subsequent war reporting. Also, can somebody dig up the actual source? If the landing was a thing: How many troops were landed, was it from the sea or airborne, and does "in Odessa" mean in the oblast or in the city proper? 217.9.50.231 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Add mention of Russian attacks on Fox News crew on 3/14/22 (https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/media/fox-cameraman-killed-pierre-zakrzewski/index.html) Jacobdegtiz (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. casualdejekyll 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording of "shot and killed" civilians (16 March)

In reality they were hit by a shell while on the street. Still awful of course, but very different to what it is implied. Source (in Ukrainian): https://suspilne.media/218533-monologi-blokadnogo-cernigova-vladislav-savenok-pro-te-ak-vijna-zminila-misto-ta-za-so-bolit/ AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If English sources are preferred:

1. ol (2022-03-17). "Death toll in attack on bread queue in Chernihiv rises to 13". Ukrinform. Russian troops launched insidious heavy artillery strikes on one of Chernihiv's residential neighborhoods. The shells hit a high-rise building and fell near a shop. There were a lot of people standing there, in a queue for bread. – That news article cites "Chief of the Chernihiv Region Police Department Volodymyr Nidzelsky" via Facebook.
2. ol (2022-03-16). "10 killed as Russians fire on people standing in queue for bread in Chernihiv". Ukrinform. Russian troops fired on people standing in queue for bread in a residential district in Chernihiv city, north Ukraine. As Suspilne media outlet informs, the shelling took place at around 10:00 on March 16. At least 10 civilians were killed. – As quoted, that news article cites Supilne, presumably what user AdrianHObradors has linked to above.

– 217.9.50.231 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Видео уничтожения двух боевых машин пехоты ВСУ высокоточным комплексом.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification that a plane that had crashed into residential building was Ukrainian

As of 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC), the section on 25 February contains the following sentence about an aircraft that had crashed into a residential building, setting it on fire:
"It was later confirmed that the aircraft was a Ukrainian Su-27."
The given source is CNN. As far as I can see, the live, non-archived version on CNN's website does not contain any reporting and is 1.8 MiB of code trying to harvest your data, so I would advise you not to open it in a browser. The archived version on archive.org does contain a short news report, buried under a generous layer of code trying to harvest your data, but said news report's content hardly bears any relation to the relevant sentence in the Wikipedia article, it just says that there is some imagery showing a building on fire and that the reason for the fire is unclear. While the news report is not entirely irrelevant to the subject, it does not seem to contain anything of worth that would add to or support the Wikipedia article, so I hereby request that somebody, instead of using {{Failed verification}} (which would make sense if the CNN report contained anything of worth) or {{Clarification needed}}, remove the CNN citation altogether and tag the sentence with {{Citation needed}}.

It would be interesting to know if the aircraft really turned out to be Ukrainian, which would be surprising given Ukraine's earlier claim of having shot it down. 217.9.50.231 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

some references on two ukranian su-27, I think the first one is the one being discussed:

[3], [4], [5], [6]

[7], 190.6.81.220 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The first one itself doesn't say it crashed into a residential building, though. But perhaps it's explicitly mentioned in one of the four sources linked there under "sources"? If it is only assumed from the combined sourcery, mentioning it would run afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. 217.9.50.231 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

it is only necessary to look at the images (fundamentally the later ones, during the day). if the fighter didn't go down on top of a house, then luckily it did it between two houses 152.207.144.126 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Should I drop my articles here

So should I do that Persesus (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

More inaccuracies - stories about Russian forces targeting the evacuation corridor in Mariupol

This story is either entirely false, or a half truth. We have an interview from Piraeus-based SKAI News, reposted by the Sydney-based Greek City Times, with a Greek resident of Mariupol. When asked by SKAI news if he planned to leave the city, Kiouranas responded “how can I leave? When you try to leave you run the risk of running into a patrol of the Ukrainian fascists, the Azov Battalion. They would kill me and are responsible for everything”. See https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/03/01/greek-in-mariupol-fascist-ukrainian/ Ianbrettcooper (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

there is another one about this, also by Greek City Times: https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/03/03/ukraine-war-russian-greek-mariupol/ 152.207.223.73 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Where does that mention any shelling? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The last article appears to blame Russians for atrocities... "The high-ranking Ukrainian made me understand that the Russians may not enter their cities and deliberately hit civilians, however, they are sabotaging. There are cases where patrols and ambulances stop, but the Russians take their vehicles and in some cases kill the crews. Sometimes also civilian vehicles". P1221 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the subject of the comment and as a summary, according to testimonies present in the two referenced articles (from March 1 and 3)

• concerns of the greek community in and around Mariupol

• the Ukrainians have chosen to fortify themselves in the cities

• the morale of Ukrainians is very high

• they do not allow civilians to leave the cities (perhaps referring only to the case of Mariupol)

• Mariupol is defended by the hard-line ukrainian Azov Battalion (according to Wikipedia, its main base is in this city), with which the russians are unable to negotiate

• Ukrainian fascists are killing people for trying to leave the city

• Blame the fascists for everything

• those forces are currently mining building blocks in Mariupol

• the ukrainian officials say that the russians may not enter their cities and deliberately hit civilians.

• the ukrainian officials also say they are sabotaging, with cases where patrols and ambulances stop, the russians take their vehicles and in some cases kill the crews.

• sometimes also civilian vehicles.

• Zelensky did not have very high popularity but now it is appreciated he enjoys the trust of almost all Ukrainians 152.207.223.132 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, we have these reports: https://twitter.com/spriter99880/status/1500477950218625024 and https://twitter.com/politblogme/status/1501196805127778308 that allege that Ukrainian military is shelling their own city and shooting people who try to leave.

These are not just coming from Russian sources now - the one I posted yesterday is from a Sky News affiliate. While it's nice to see the Ukrainian government's and US State Department's approved version of what's happening in the conflict (after all, it's so rare we get that perspective), it would be nice to get a little bit of balance thrown in occasionally. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Weird, isn't it, how claims of Russian evildoing gets fast-tracked onto the main page, but well-documented claims of Ukrainian evildoing sit here in limbo for days. I guess to the editors of Wikipedia's "protected" pages think that some claims are more equal than others. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ianbrettcooper, thanks for pointing this news out. If confirmed, for sure it is worth to be added in the article. Unfortunately I can't find other sources confirming this, and Twitter can't be considered a reliable source as per WP guidelines. I'm keeping an eye to find additional sources as well, but I believe that we can't add this news for now, because it is based on one source only. P1221 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We might be able to include with attribution, but what do we know about SKAI News? Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Note, one source (even if a good one) would not count as "well documented". Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the rules, but I would demand "well documented" for statements like "Azov battalion kills fleeing civilians", whereas I think it is absurd to demand "well documented" for statements like "in an interview with Skai, a citizen inside besieged Mariupol alleged X or voiced their fear of Y". As long as it is merely about what (more or less) random people merely claim, I think a single good source should be enough, especially if it's about what people inside a city under siege THINK is happening. This may not be an acceptable source to determine whether Azov has committed war crimes, but I think it is a good enough source for the reasons of SOME civilians to stay in the besieged city. And nobody expects anything to be "well documented" about events in places inaccessible to journalists in times of (fog of) war, and nobody expects reliable information on how representative any given opinion or fear is. I'm aware that a lax policy may lead to lots of spurious claims (clearly marked as just claims, of course) from all sides cluttering up Wikipedia.

If Wikipedia leaves this out on the grounds that it's "single source", why doesn't Wikipedia also leave out the claim that "Russian troops have landed in Odessa (by 24 Feb)" (see relevant section on this talk page) and the claim that "the plane which (undisputedly) crashed into a residential building was shot down by Ukraine and/or was Ukrainian" (see relevant section on this talk page)? I'd rather have all of those in, preferably with added comments about the extent to which each claim later turned out to be true or false, when possible. 217.9.50.231 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:undue, we do not give one random persons views an airing. We do (whoever) give more weight to the views of government officials. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're right: The Greek interview shouldn't be included. (But we still have no proper source to back up the statements about the (false?) Ode(s)sa landing and about the (Ukrainian?) plane shot down (by Ukraine?) crashing into a residential building. Each of those rely on a single source which in the plane case doesn't come close to justifying the current wording in the timeline, and in the landing case is an obsolete version of a NYT page that doesn't cite its sources.) 217.9.50.231 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already seen several video testimonies similar to these by city dwellers, (some by reporters on the ground, the most recent was one from France 24 on TV), by some who managed to evacuate and others who remained. Let's wait for some RS to pick them, but in the current climate and trend of most of these RS, it looks a bit difficult for now. Some more from the greeks: [8], [9]152.207.223.108 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Many Greeks consider themselves friends of the Russians and they read the same news sources, which are not reliable. Porttikivi (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Should it be clarified?

The case of "Apartment block in Kyiv (Valeriy Lobanovskyi Avenue) struck by a missile, 26 February", I think it should be clarified that it was hit by an uncontrolled or missfired missile from a Ukrainian Buk air defense system. It can be verified by watching the videos of the event including those latter filmed from ground level (on best video the shape of the missile is clearly seen, corresponding to a Buk missile, also its plume as no cruise missile has a plume like that), by place (hit at lat50.422725, lon30.465098; best video taken from lat50.422085, lon30.462092, about floor level 16, camera pointing to east), date and time (8:12 to 9:08 in the morning, according video camera timming, not always corrected), position from the sun (east, in front of the camera), the trajectory followed by the missile (acounting for camera lens distortion, its from south-southwest to north-northeast. also using Google StreetView, facing the building, it is necessary to look south-south-west to see where the missile came from and hit the building), speed (can be estimated from video timmig, references and distances, about 1800 m/s, the sonic boom can be heard first, the missile passed at about 150-170 meters from that camera). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.108 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be original research and/or synthesis? (Also, if you want people to see that clip, why don't you provide a link?) 217.9.50.231 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

well, yes, it would be OR. but since you ask for some links:

youtube videos. at 0.467 seconds, frame 14, the missile is clearly visible [10]

Buk AA missile system: [11] , BUK M1 missile: [12]

another video : [13]

the speed is obtained by triangulating the first position of the missile in the image and where it hits, taking the time on the video, in milliseconds.

the distance camera-missile is obtained by the arrival time of the sonic boom. the same can be verified with the distance to the point of impact and the sound of the explosion (the second boom).

Google Maps (use the above coordinates): [14]

Google StreetView, look at the compass, looking south-southwest, where the missile came from : [15]

With such a low trajectory and still low speed shows that the launch point is not very far, following back the trayectory, may have been launched from Sikorsy airport or its surroundings (2 km), or maybe farther away, from Vasylkiv Air Base (24km) still within the range of the missile (don't know if powered)

On that date (February 26) all the Russian forces were about 25 km north of this position, at Hostomel airport.

There is a video on twitter that claims to show the trace (almost straight) of the missile from launch to impact, but I have lost the reference.

So, a case of friendly fire by a possible misguided or malfunctioning missile or guidance radar. 152.207.223.201 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

On March 22, 2022, add "Ukranian Forces also recaptured Makariv, a city 30 miles (48 kilometers) away from Kyiv's center." 108.30.253.148 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Question: On Hold - Please provide a source for this statement, and I'll be happy to add it for you. Fieari (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

4th April Bucha

Please include UK's rejection of Russia’s request to hold an emergency meeting to clarify the events in Ukraine’s Bucha: https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/220404_SC.doc.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:3032:413:2eb6:18c9:695a:30a8:5264 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

Izyum isn't under Russian control according to the ISW: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-24 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim was also denied by Ukrainian offficials: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ukraine-denies-russian-troops-have-captured-key-east-city-izyum/ 72.229.242.36 (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

The regional administration building in Mykolaiv was hit by a Russian rocket, killing 12 people and wounding 33 others. Your citation says that! Alxvlad02 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Who "says"?

April 2: "The Kyiv offensive had also fallen apart several days after Russia said it would withdraw some troops from the North."

April 8: "Russia said it had destroyed a training centre for foreign mercenaries near the city of Odessa."

Do you see what I'm seeing? I know it just happened two times so far (yet easy to mend if it's just a couple) but can you guys please make it a little more specific and fair? I'm referring to the "Russia said...". I'm sure something more realistic would be "...Defense..." or a certain person/politician or an organization, y'know?

Why, as these do seem to be official statements? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I know many officials say it, but using "Russia" is not (always) specific or accurate enough. Not all of Russia wants the war anyway. I'm not really trying to be an annoying technicalist but it wouldn't really hurt to put or switch it with WHAT of/from Russia "said" a certain thing, or when we can? Can we at least agree what I'm saying makes somewhat sense? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:2913:E0D8:4684:40D1 (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Moved from Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

 – CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 16:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"19 March See also: Battle of Mykolaiv Russian forces allegedly bombed an art school in Mariupol, where 400 people were taking shelter.[279][280]" Why are you linking to battle of Mykolaiv when talking about a bombing in Mariupol? Link to the siege of Mariupol if you want to contextualise. 86.1.33.129 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An open edit request doesn't belong to the archive. Please, consider answering the request before archiving. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 16:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: A bot did it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The "see also" hatnote was already changed to point to Mariupol art school bombing. I've now removed it, because it's already linked in the section. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The tragedy of April 8

Please add a map and correct the address of the link to the Russian propaganda portal "lenta.ru", in which the Russian Defense Ministry boasted about the shelling of railway stations 91.210.248.228 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved this reference out of the map frame (refs don't work in mapframes):

• "Минобороны заявило об уничтожении вооружения прибывших в Донбасс резервов ВСУ" (in Russian). Lenta.ru. 2022-04-08.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

Misspelling on April 9 section. Civilian Ukrainians should be Ukrainian civilians. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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 should probably split this article from April 1st, I'm just worried that the article will become too long.

this article would be renamed "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (February – March)" and the new article "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (April)"

Great Mercian (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no sane reason to do that. The daily sections are not enormous walls of text that couldn't possibly be scrolled or clicked past, using the heading links at the top. That would just be terribly inconvenient for anyone who wants to read the whole story. Why does everything need to be hidden away into countless sub-pages all the time?

Maybe I'd agree to split it after every 4 months (4 months per article), if this was some sort of eternal war, but the war will probably be over in one (1) more month. GMRE (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm sane. :/ Great Mercian (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Even though 268,028 bytes is already a lot, I'd split the page starting from May, if the conflict continues. Unfrigginbelievable (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ok, from May then. Great Mercian (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not only will we need new pages for every two months or whenever, but it's not even that hard to use that section thing. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Readable prose size is currently 65 kB. Per Wikipedia:Splitting#Size split, this should probably be divided. With the current size, Feb/Mar and Apr would probably be the best split, but I think we should wait until either there isn't as much new content being added or readable prose size increases to 100 kB or more (at which point we should split). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Despite the conflict and political atmosphere around news that come out of the fog of war wikipedia must maintain a purely encyclopedic role. A splitting of the article in my view could be politicised or viewed as un unjustified separation of the conflic in phases, if such separation is justified should be decided in the coming weeks when we see a major offensive/counteroffensive take place otherwise space issuses are simply not enough of a good reason. The amount of information about this conflict has been overwhelming and in my opinion it comes down to the reliability of encyclopedia as such to do everything possible to not politicise the information written and avoid any possibility of such thing happening. ELtorto (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. There is absolutely no reason to cause this level of fragmentation between wiki pages surrounding the one main objective — to provide a timeline of events in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This page is intentionally long and well documented, and those stumbling upon the page are implicitly warned of the contents within. At most, the Template:Very_long template shall be employed but I see absolutely no reason to split this page up by month or any other chunk of time. Ifrenkel (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree While I do think that splitting the page may be necessary in the future for technical reasons assuming the conflict continues for a prolonged period of time, the page in its current state is perfectly readable. Nabikunyoi (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with it being long; Disagree with splitting into sub-articles. I have added the "Very Long" template to the top of the page along with removing the suggestion about splitting into sub-articles and added into it about the readable prose size. ypc0cnz (talk) 17:16, 18 April 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.

Movement Proposal (Inside of Page)

Wikipedia and its editors should move 21 of February into the section labeled "Prelude." I understand that all may not believe that this should be done, but to me it has seemed out of place since I first saw it. - ypc0cnz (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, just like the 2008 Invasion of Georgia the recognition of 2 breakaway states was used as a (and I had to look this up) Casus Belli for the Invasion. Great Mercian (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Missing words in the April 19th section, "said that Russian forces had seized the city of Kreminna that Ukrainian had withdrawn from the city", it should be "Kreminna AND that Ukrainian TROOPS had...". ItsCobra98 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 19 April 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:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeline from April 18 onwards is on a different page

Battle of Donbas (2022) documents the more detailed events and could just say look there for future events. 66.255.234.241 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Tags

Hello those of the Wikipedian master race, I would like to inform you that I have added several tags to the page of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. These tags include: This article needs to be updated, This article's factual accuracy is disputed, and This article documents a current event. Please see my Edit Summary for more information on this (is still pretty vague though, sorry about that). If you do not agree with my changes, please let us discuss this and decide whether these tags will stay and whether or not more tags should be required. Yesterday I included the Very Long tag, and if you do not agree with that then again, please discuss this with me and others here. Have a great day, ypc0cnz (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ypc0cnz: I don't agree with the tag additions (except for Template:Very long). A bot automatically removed Template:Current, because as its documentation says, it's "generally expected to appear on an article for less than a day". As for Template:Disputed, you aren't mentioning any specific claims that you're disputing the factual accuracy of; which claims are you disputing? I also don't think Template:Update is helpful, because it's an ongoing event, so of course it may be out of date; as far as I know, this template is designed for articles which need a one-time update, not articles about ongoing events. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree on all points. On the accuracy issue specifically, the article states the broad source of the information and what the statement was. It does not assume that the statements are true, just that they occurred, which is backed up with one or more references. I re-instated an edit today which was removed on the basis that it's factual accuracy cannot be verified, but in fact the text only claims that the Russians made a statement about something, which according to cited sources, they did. If there are specific inaccuracies they should be referred to and can be fixed. Suggest the tag additions are removed. Rafflesgluft (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Disputed has been removed. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not responding sooner, I have been fairly busy recently, but despite that, thank you for your reply. Like I said in the response to Tol, I am a new editor and I make many mistakes, and your reply helped to further me into becoming a good editor. I will make sure not to misuse tags like I have here in the future. Thank you so much for your reply! Have a great day, ypc0cnz (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry for not responding sooner (I have been really busy for the past few days), but thank you for your response. It was very helpful to me and highlighted the mistakes that I have made. I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and your response helped me to become just a little bit better (still not too good, though). Also, thank you for enlightening me about the Update template. I had previously not known that. Thank you for your reply Tol! Have a wonderful day, ypc0cnz (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Generally, tags shouldn't be added unless there's a current problem with the page that you can't fix yourself, so you need another editor's help in fixing the problem (see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I did not know that! - ypc0cnz (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I've removed Template:Update. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! - ypc0cnz (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"the ruzzian defense ministry claimed"

is this page some sort of kremlin propaganda platform now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.221.45.43 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, but we have to put both sides claims, or only fully (and independently) conformed facts. Of which there are few. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Too Long?

In regards to the "Too Long" tag, this is a timeline. As such, it is chronological; one navigates it comfortably day-by-day. kencf0618 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Request change on 30th of april section

On the section about the 30th of April events should be noted that russia's claim was yet to be verified, that is specified both in the source given aswell as reuter's report . At least wait for the claim to be confirmed before putting it in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELtorto (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

also its worth noting int page that on 29th of April it was claimed that russian forces siezed art pieces in mariupol's museums, , i believe it is important because if confirmed it contributes to the portion of the conflict about attacking ukranian national identity ELtorto (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is citation-driven. kencf0618 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

i provided you with citations ELtorto (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony

Is it valuable mentioning that 21 February (where is kind of started) was 1 day after the 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony? (Media has reported that Putin would have waited to start the conflict after the Olympics by a request of China). My propose to start the sentence: On 21 February, one day after the 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony, … 82.174.61.58 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be worth mentioning however the Olympics are followed by the paralymics which is still the Olympics and follows the same rule of an Olympic Truce (I could be wrong but I believe this is what China was attempting to enforce) The Introvert Next To You (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

But no evidance

Either we appended all "claims by " statements with the caveat "but no evidence has been produced" or none. As we say they are claims, not facts, we do not need to only sometimes say they are not proven facts. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

edit request

7 May

Bilohorivka —> Bilohorivka

Shypilovo—> Shipilovo

8 May

Popasna —> Popasna

109.37.149.67 (talk)

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 15:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Time to split the timeline

I began the initial timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic the night they shut Wuhan down, which has since engendered this behemoth:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Worldwide_timelines_by_month_and_year

I believe we should take this as a template: Each month, an article/timeline. Each country's reaction, an article/timeline. Some aspects of this can be automated, but I have not that skill set and I am not going to mess it up.

Take Turkey, for example. There are indications that it is shipping Bayraktar UAVs to Ukraine fresh off the assembly lines, if serial numbers are anything to go by. This is the first war in which both sides are using drones comprehensively –a Drone warfare timeline should be in the works. And so it goes.

kencf0618 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hryhoriy Skovoroda Literary Memorial Museum

In the prose of 6 May is a typo in the ill template (should be without “the”). But besides of that now the article exist:

the Hryhoriy Skovoroda Literary Memorial Museum —> the Hryhoriy Skovoroda Literary Memorial Museum

82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Converted {{ill}} to direct link. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Accident, Negligence or Sabotage?

21/04/2022 - A fire broke out at the Central Research Institute of the Russian Air Defense Forces in Tver, killing 17 people.

25/04/2022 - An oil depot burned down in the Russian city of Brynsk.

01/05/2022 - A munitions factory in the Russian city of Perm caught fire and exploded at 08:00 pm killing several people. A few days later an aviation college in the same city was engulfed by fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Assault

09?05/2022 - The Russian ambassador was hit by red paint during the end of WW2 commemoration in Warsaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request.

In the source for May 9th, it doesn't say anything about Russia losing 54 drones. Can someone please change it?--Sneedku (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

change Hryhoriy Skovoroda Literary Memorial Museum to Hryhoriy Skovoroda Literary Memorial Museum Half-kratos21 (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is a red link because someone thinks it is notable rough for an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please add more information about Ukrainian advances?

Many of the recent entries deals with Russian advances and events that could be seen as beneficial to Russia. Can someone add events about Ukrainian advances to help balance the article out? 49.144.202.126 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

16 May marked the likely end of the Siege of Mariupol

Interesting sentence to read the next day 17th May. --Wisdood (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Diplomatic

18/05/2022 - The United States Government re-opened its embassy in Kiev.

Kyiv* Great Mercian (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Map update

The map at the beginning of the article needs to be updated as it is now 1 month old and outdated. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Political

Apart from the Duma passing a law to recruit older soldiers, president Putin also declared that the war with Ukraine will be long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Precursor to joining NATO

11:05/2022 - Boris Johnson has signed security/defence agreements/arrangements with both Sweden and Finland.

12/05/2022 - The president and prime minister of Finland have both officially declared that they are in favour of Finland joining NATO. A Finnish public opinion poll showed that prior to the invasion of Ukraine, about 20% to 30% of Finns were in favour of joining NATO, but that after the invasion of Ukraine, 76% of Finns were in favour of joining NATO.

16/05/2022 - The Swedish parliament officially declared its intention to apply for NATO membership as it believes that its current neutral status is not enough for its national security.

16/05/2022 - It was reported that whilst Finland's application for NATO membership was being processed, NATO military personnel would be sent to Finland as a precaution against possible Russian aggression.

18/05/2022 - Both Sweden and Finland officially applied to join NATO although Turkey has raised objections to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

22/05/2022 - Russia cut off gas supplies to Finland in retaliation of Finland's application to join NATO. Finland has stated that this has no effect as it only receives 5% of its gas from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the invasion, not prelude. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad I misread, but it's about the invasion of Ukraine. Dawsongfg (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Blockade

11/05/2022 - Ukraine has cut off/severed/blocked all gas and oil pipelines that run through its territory between Russia and Europe. The reason for this is to minimize any damage caused by Russian bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

War Crimes Trial

The first war crimes trial of the war began in Kiev where a Russian soldier pleaded guilty to murdering a Ukrainian civilian. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Ukrainian War Crimes Tribunal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Separate into months?

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.

---

This is too long to navigate, thus I recommend to separate these into months. Feel free to respond, and leave a reply on my talk page. User:R3alPTg (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2022 (MMT)

• Yes. I do agree that this article must be seperated into month-wise articles. It won't be a hassle, considering that only 4 months has passed. User:Narutmaru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with this proposal as well, though perhaps February and March should be kept together as one article, as the invasion started on the tail end of February. Other than that, I wholeheartedly support this. 🜚 Yatagarasu 🜚 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Concur that the article should be split at the March-April boundary; less enthusiastic about February-March or April-May. The end of March also marks the Russian forces' "refocus" on taking territory in the east away from Kiev. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Again? We've had this discussion a couple weeks ago and a consensus was reached — not to split. I suppose now that four months have passed since the conflict's inception, the time has come a time to split it up by month, but I fear fragmentation and over-complicating the navigation structure that leads to the timeline page. If you have any suggestions as to how we could go about splitting but also keeping navigation in mind; do respond. Otherwise, I stand in weak opposition to the splitting. Ifrenkel (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps the article should be cleaned up and compressed instead? I.e. from April (or May) onwards, change subheadings from days to weeks, and remove any information that is not particularly notable, such as claims of small airstrikes or destruction of various less significant objects/locations. IlyaHolt (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think changing from days to weeks would be helpful. That'd make it slower and harder to navigate (and navigability was the OP's stated concern). And individual dates would now need additional verbiage, instead of the concise day headings. There's probably a decent amount of text that could be compactified, though as I scrolled through just now, I saw fewer instances than I expected, and I'm not sure it'd make a big enough difference to satisfy the people that want a split. --Dan Harkless (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose from April, Support from May not political, just size Great Mercian (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a timeline. If somebody doesn't want a full play-by-play, they can just read 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Arbitrarily cutting it in half due to general article size best practices is super-awkward, IMHO. That'd also mess with text that assumes the reader has seen the text above, or at least can do a Find on Page within that text; it'd mess with maintenance of references that carry over the split-point; etc. As with the consensus last time, I think the cure is worse than the disease on this. Again, maybe if it drags on a whole lot longer, it may get to the point where mobile browsers are choking on the page, but until then, I think splitting the timeline should be considered harmful. --Dan Harkless (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Harmful? splitting the page wouldn't cause a heart attack in the reader. Great Mercian (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, considered harmful is a phrase from the computer science world (and apparently the world of newspaper headlines before that, I just learned from its article) used (somewhat jocularly) in advocacy against the use of specific bits of technology. --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose. All sections are automatically collapsed for easy reading and navigating two articles is simply unnecessary Hydroquake (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. It's nice having the entire timeline in one article instead of going from one to the next. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, but there has to be a point when we eventually split Great Mercian (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that for the time being it would be simpler to keep the whole timeline on one page. IrrationalBeing (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. What is the benefit of splitting? The only one I can think of is people who scroll have to scroll less to get to current events. That's not an overwhelming reason to cut this article in half. People come here because they want the whole play-by-play, not half of it. Agree with others that a split may have to be considered again in the future, but I don't think that moment is now. TheSavageNorwegian 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  yeah but i doubt they'll split the article until like december Great Mercian (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. couldn't you just reorganize this page into smaller sections by weeks within the months instead of individual dates to better condense the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.121.35.65 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not about cutting the content in half! I am proposing splitting the articles into many (similar to covid timeline), for better navigation. Narutmaru (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not merely your average Wikipedia article that may have gone into too much depth; the whole point of this one is to be a complete timeline of the invasion. Splitting it off causes unnecessary drama and redirection for readers. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is meant to be a timeline, not a normal article, so I don't think it should be split. Guyfromearth2 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment:I do not have a take on whether or not to split the article now, but I did want to make sure that editors know that there are technical limits on the pages length. When editing the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections page this year, we noticed that at around 1,000 citations the article starts to break and not display citations correctly. This article isn't near the citation limit yet, but since the article gets bigger everyday its worth keeping in mind there are hard limits on wikipedia article lengths eventually. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just so. Eventually it'll be modularized à la Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Can't not be. kencf0618 (talk) 03:07, 30 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.