Talk:Dnieper campaign (2022–present)

Rephrasing needed

@DinoSoupCanada: I like the idea for the article, but the Kinburn Spit section (and potentially more, I didn't check) is literally word for word as far as I can tell, minus taking out the subparagraph headers and the blockquote. Without the headers, there are no breaks in the reading and it is clunky to read, but with them, it's just entirely copied material. Linking to the Ukrainian recapture attempts section in the Kinburn Spit article is definitely not 'further information', it's the exact same. I feel the section needs to be summarized to a basic overview of the skirmishes, because as of now, 3/4th of the article is just the Kinburn Spit section, which doesn't put due attention on the other also very important skirmishes happening alongside the Dnipro River. I wrote the entire 2022 Russian invasion section for the Kinburn Spit article some months back now, so I can help out with this if needed, but some rephrasing I feel is definitely needed. Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, will work on soon 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes! Wishing you the best 😁 Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Future of this article

I do not believe that in the long-term this article will be notable. However, we can easily tell these skirmishes are Ukrainian preparations for a southern counteroffensive. When the time comes and such counteroffensive takes place, I believe we should have this article merged into its article as a prelude section. 2022 Kherson counteroffensive#Prelude goes back several months and can serve as a model. Still, this article shouldn't be deleted for now, as making a page for an inexistent counteroffensive is nonsense. The status quo is favorable now, though I am not sure about it in the future. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with merging this if a future counteroffensive happens. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• We might see the southern counteroffensive starting soon. Ukraine's military has confirmed (it was already assumed, but now it's actually a solid thing) that it intends to do a counteroffensive in the south in spring to cut off Russia's connection with Crimea. Considering this and that this is so far the most appropriate article for such a scope, it could be a good idea to start adding information related to Ukraine's whole south (for example, the recent strikes in Mariupol) here. This page could also be the basis for starting a new draft article (could be titled Draft:2023 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive) on the counteroffensive. Some anticipation by Wikipedia users is desirable in my opinion. The 2022 Kherson counteroffensive article was created on 10 July 2022 even though the counteroffensive started on 29 August. By the time it started, we already had a pretty well-written article [1]. Super Ψ Dro 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Name

The article alternates between the Russian and Ukrainian names for the river. We need to settle on one. Stara Marusya (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The Russian name, Dnieper, is the most common name used in the English language. Therefore, that should be the one used and "Dnipro" should be removed. Super Ψ Dro 16:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been using Dnipro in all my edits across several different articles because it is the official Ukrainian name of the river, and the name of the river used for Dnipro. Scu ba (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Odd, because most if not all english sources I've seen have used the term Dnipro for the river. Scu ba (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe sources started switching terms, like they did from Kiev to Kyiv. Super Ψ Dro 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Current updates needed

On April 22nd, the ISW confirmed that the northern bank of the Konka river fell the previous night. This means the northern outskirts of Oleshky are under Ukrainian control. This needs to be put on it’s own section, as it’s too notable to call an incursion. 96.242.227.52 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added this as another Incursion, it might be enough to split it off as its own section should the situation escalate around Oleshky. However, as of writing, it looks like the Ukrainian forces took a picture in front of Oleshky's welcome sign and then returned across the Konka before Russian officials and forces could react. However, the AP has assessed that the ~8,900 acre island between the Dnipro and Konka, and its sole settlement Dachi, are under Ukrainian control. Of course this will be updated as the situation develops. Scu ba (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian Confirmation

According to the May 7th ISW report, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that Ukrainian forces held a presence on the Dnipro islands. I feel that this should be included in this article.

"The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) acknowledged that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence on islands in the Dnipro River delta as of May 7. The Russian MoD claimed on May 7 that Russian forces struck a Ukrainian command center on Velykyi Island (23km southwest of Kherson City)." IdioticAnarchist (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Kakhovka Reservoir?

Should skirmishes in and along the Kakhovka Reservoir be included in this article? I had assumed that the area of the campaign was what is in the top infobox picture. Basically from the Kinburn to Nova Kakhovka. However, the addition on the pseudo-mystical ZNPP raid in this article would stretch this all the way to Zaporizhzhia greatly expanding the zone of conflict by about ~115 miles. I feel that the ZNPP raid should be talked about in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis article and that this aricle only talk about skirmishes between the Kinburn and Nova Kakhovka. Scu ba (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well so could a counteroffensive imply a crossing of the former Kakhovka Reservoir. The point of this article, as I see it, is to work as a prelude for a southern Ukrainian counteroffensive. Because that's what all fighting, always started by Ukraine in this case, is aimed at. Super Ψ Dro 19:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2023

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: No consensus. This title refers to the river, which Wikipedia calls Dnieper, rather than the city, which it calls Dnipro. Nominator suggests that English sources more often use the spelling Dnipro (for WP:COMMONNAME). However, opponents note that this is because those sources are calling the river itself the Dnipro, not that they are using the phrase "Dni____ campaign" as a common name (much less as a common name distinctive from the name of the river). Rather, "Dni____ campaign" is the descriptive name that Wikipedians have assigned to the topic. Accordingly, opponents object that there is no common name of the campaign as distinct from the common name of the river, and that WP:CONSISTENT/WP:CONSUB point to using the same spelling as the Dnieper article (where a move request was recently closed as "not moved"). (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → 2022–2023 Dnipro campaign – Of English-language sources cited in the article, the clear majority use the spelling Dnipro. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

Few use Dnieper, [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] one uses both spellings, [35] and some don’t use the river’s name at all. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Both Dnipro and Dnieper are commonly used English spellings for the river. We should follow sources and use the most WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources on the subject of this campaign and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Correction: I included two citations in the wrong list. I have now moved them from the Dnipro list to the Dnieper list. The clear majority remains sources using Dnipro. —Michael Z. 01:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose we should use whatever name the river's article follows. Super Ψ Dro 21:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Exceptions are made according to context. Look at all the historical articles that use “Kiev,” for example. Unlike that example, here there is a clear argument based on prevailing usage in sources. —Michael Z. 21:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have never seen another case like Kyiv in Wikipedia. That is an exceptional treatment as a result of long complicated discussions. In my opinion all articles should use Kyiv, or Dnieper. I am also strongly opposed to referring to the same entity in different ways throughout Wikipedia. That's something I don't remember having seen before other than Kyiv/Kiev. Super Ψ Dro 08:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then let’s start renaming twenty-odd articles with “Kharkov” in the title.[41] And quite a few with “Odessa.”[42] Obviously the consensus within which we have to work does not take the same view, and I’m sure you don’t need me to cite the relevant guidelines. There are times when the specific subject warrants the specific name.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per heavily-researched nomination. As in the case of earlier successful nominations Kiev → Kyiv or Odessa → Odesa, the English transliteration of the river's Ukrainian name — Dnipro (river) — has become dominant over the English transliteration of the river's Russian name — Dnieper. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This RM is not an equivalent to the Odesa and Kyiv ones. That'd be Talk:Dnieper#Requested move 7 June 2023, the result of which should be the one applied here. Super Ψ Dro 08:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The result of Talk:Dnieper#Requested move 7 June 2023 is independent of this RM. As pointed out below, Wikipedia has articles which continue to use forms such as "Kiev", "Kharkov", "Odessa", "Bombay", "Calcutta" or "Peking", while the main entries for those cities no longer display the city names formerly used in the English-speaking world. Thus, the header for the entry delineating this military action should be "2022–2023 Dnipro campaign", regardless of what happens in the other RM. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• support per nom—blindlynx 02:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, Dnieper is the proper English spelling. Marcelus (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ENGLISH tells us to follow sources on the subject, not to use “proper English.”  —Michael Z. 12:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Stop this nonsense, "Dnieper campaign" is Wiki made up name that hardly any source uses; there is no reason to use different name of the river than the one used in the article about the river. Marcelus (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  You pronounced this nonsense. Not me. I merely referred to the relevant guideline that gives the reasons.  —Michael Z. 16:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  You pronounced this nonsense, so now I was promoted to the status of pro-Russian account? Is that what this mean? Marcelus (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. Your imperative interjection just reminded me of that. I couldn’t ignore your utter dismissal of my directly relevant reference to the guideline. —Michael Z. 20:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't refering to the guideline, but to the proposition as a whole Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, so you meant there’s no reason outside of the guidelines.  —Michael Z. 01:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMON NAME. This page is about a military campaign, not about the river. This is a current event. Therefore, if the current common name of the event is "Dnipro campaign" (as it appears to be from citations provided by nominator), then it should be renamed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, the article title is a descriptive phrase and does not seem to appear in many sources. But the cited sources name the river mentioned in the phrase as Dnipro.  —Michael Z. 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. However, it appears that most sources which describe this event use "Dnipro". Therefore, the descriptive title should also include "Dnipro". My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• So the whole nomination is baseless? Why didn't you write that in your original nomination post? Marcelus (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  You’re also saying the current title is baseless then, aren’t you? I’m suggesting we use a version that conforms better to the language of the sources, for all of the reasons enumerated in WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH, etcetera.

  Suggestions for a more based title are welcome, of course.  —Michael Z. 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  The current name is preferable because the article about the river is named Dnieper, that's all. Marcelus (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well that is a valid opinion, but it’s not a given, in view of all the articles with, for example, “Kiev” and “Kharkov” in their title instead of Kyiv or Kharkiv.  —Michael Z. 00:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcelus. No, it is usually named "Dnipro", not "Dnieper" in majority of sources on the military campaign, which is the subject of this page. Therefore, I think WP:COMMON NAME applies. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, because none of the sources are naming the campaign in any way Marcelus (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, if the majority of sources on this subject (the campaign) uses "Dnipro", so should we. We must simply follow the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment This discussion was closed by me as moved, however, an editor raised arguments on my talk page following which, had they had been included here, I felt that I would have closed it differently. I have reopened the request for further discussion as requested, and am recusing myself from closing of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Reopened the discussion per request on t/p Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• As I am no longer going to be judging the result, I am adding my opinion here that I reached after my analysis of the situation:

The argument for supporting the move that calls on WP:COMMONNAME is flawed. Multiple sources that have been cited do use the term "Dnipro" more often than "Dnieper", however, that is irrelevant here. When raising the WP:COMMONNAME argument, it needs to be shown that the article title as a whole is the common term used for describing the event, which is not the case here (In fact, searching for the term as a whole reveals only two results both of which are from wikipedia itself). The title is not based on common name, it is a descriptive title. Therefore, WP:CONSUB applies, where the articles with descriptive titles should follow the name of the source, i.e. Dnieper.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

CONSUB directly addresses a similar example of Volgograd/Battle of Stalingrad: “a common name that reflects the historical context of that event.” Another example is “historical usage” in WP:KYIV, which shows the acceptability of the principle, although unlike this proposal that one is not based on any rationale from usage in sources on the subtopic. —Michael Z. 15:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I would advise you to reread the WP:CONSUB section, specifically, it states "exception to this rule is where a specific subtopic has its own common name".

The Battle of Stalingrad is the common name for the battle, so it is used. Like I pointed out, the 2022–2023 Dnipro campaign is not the common name of the article, it is simply a descriptive title. Hence WP:CONSUB applies.

Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

So when there’s no COMMONNAME then CONSUB applies. The explicit exception written in CONSUB only applies when there is a COMMONNAME. This is a self-contradictory interpretation.  —Michael Z. 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats not a contradiction. CONSUB always applies, but is overruled by COMMONNAME if a common name exists. Simple.

Here, there isnt a common name, so we should use 2022–2023 Dnieper campaign. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

1) If CONSUB specifically refers to common names throughout, and you say there is no common name for this supposed subtopic of Dnieper, then CONSUB doesn’t apply here. This is a possible interpretation of the guidance itself, but the examples dispel the idea, because they include descriptive titles. A close reading of the exception also allows the same interpretation of it. Not only that “Battle of Stalingrad” is a “common name in the context of the subtopic,” but that “Stalingrad” is, “in the historical context of the period.” And so it is, because we have descriptive titles bombing of Stalingrad and Hitler's Stalingrad speech. The same would apply here.

2) The 2022–2023 Dnipro campaign not a subtopic of Dnieper. Dnipro is merely a geographical identifier or natural disambiguator. A name used in the vast majority of sources on this subtopic, and on its actual parent topic, Russian invasion of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 13:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

For 1) you seem quite confused about what CONSUB is. Are you saying CONSUB is contradictory by itself? Its written fairly clearly, the exception is in cases where a common name exists. Thats not the case here.

For 2), its a descriptive title that focuses on the assaults around the river that is the Dnieper. And Dnipro isnt just a river, but a city too, so it is an ambiguous identifier as well Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I was saying your interpretation is self-contradictory.

Interesting question, no. 2. Obviously, “the Dnipro” as it is consistently used is completely unambiguous, as are “river Dnipro” and “Dnipro river.” But that is neither here nor there, because neither title “2022–2023 Dnipro campaign” nor “2022–2023 Dnieper campaign” is in he least confusable with any other article. So that line of reasoning is moot.  —Michael Z. 04:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support in context of article In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: The case was reopened on my request. As I already voted against the move to "Dnipro campaign", I'll just explain here more extensively my reasoning. First of all the WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here because, contrary to what the nominator claims, the campaign does not have an accepted name in the sources, it does not appear as a separate phenomenon at all. The name of the river appears in sources only to place the events described in the sources in space. In general, one may wonder whether the term 'campaign' is adequate in relation to the events described. But this is a secondary issue. Besides, the sources cited do not meet the requirement of statistical reliability. The nominator simply collected several dozen sources that use his preferred name 'Dnipro', and for greater credibility he also provided several sources that use the name 'Dniper'. We have no information whether these two samples are in any way representative. Given that a large part of the nominator's activity consists of 'Ukrainianising' and, as he puts it, 'decolonising' the toponyms that exist in the region, I think there is reason to believe that this nomination was driven by his personal bias rather than a desire to convey an objective state of knowledge.Marcelus (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

While I disagree with accusing users of "Ukrainianising" I do agree with the rest of your rationale. These events lack any proper name in sources, this is a descriptive title and as such should follow the main article. If these events had a proper name such as "Battle of the Dnipro" with the Dnipro version included on it the WP:COMMONNAME argument, already questionable by itself as shown by the RM at the river's main article, would at least have more strength. By the way, considering that the RM at the river's article (link) ended with such an overwhelming opposition, I'd be careful with the decision I would take if I was the closer of this discussion. Super Ψ Dro 16:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not consistent. We’re not applying this logic to all of the descriptive titles with “Kharkov,”[43] “Kiev,”[44] etcetera, etcetera. The fact is there is no evidence that those Russian names are more common in historical subjects than they are in the entire corpus that was considered when we agreed on the titles Kharkiv and Kyiv. In this proposal there is exactly that undeniable evidence for the current topic, above.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We are applying this logic in most cases, as far as I am aware of. Just contrary to the "Dnieper/Dnipro campaign", names like "Kievan Rus" or "Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'" have established usage in sources. Marcelus (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The latter doesn’t have enough usage to register in Google Books Ngram Viewer.[45]

You know there was a WP:VOTE (with no rationale given in the proposal nor decision), as recorded in WP:KYIV, that all subjects before 1995 or 1991 must use the Russian Kiev spelling, regardless of “established usage.” Even though no one has ever demonstrated that any of these articles’ subjects are spelled with Kiev over Kyiv in a higher proportion than for any other subjects.

Looking at searches for historical subjects in Google Books and Google Scholar, I believe it is likely that academic history uses the Kyiv spelling more than the general corpus.  —Michael Z. 18:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You've mentioned this argument often. It's just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do not agree with Kharkov or Kiev being used anyway. And as Marcelus says, names like that are proper names, not descriptive ones. Articles like "Cuisine of Kharkiv" or "Kyiv in the Middle Ages", with descriptive titles, will never use the Russian forms. And regarding WP:CONSISTENT, this article would be the first to break consistency among articles related to the river if moved. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That you disagree with it is immaterial.

You really believe “Kyiv in the Middle Ages” would stand a chance under WP:KYIV? Look at the body text of History of Kyiv where editors refuse to even use the title term’s spelling (I got attacked and dragged to AE for suggesting it), at the inconsistent titles in Category:Elections in Kyiv, at other battle and campaign articles in Category:Military history of Kyiv.  —Michael Z. 18:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Marcellus is already aware from the original proposal above and discussion elsewhere[A] that the sources cited are all of the English-language sources that are cited in the article. The tally is:

• Dnipro 29 (85% of mentions) 27 (79% of mentions)
• Dnieper 4 (12%) 6 (18%)
• Both 1 (3%)
• (Neither 5)

If we count websites instead of citations, the count becomes 15:3:1, with 79% 13:5:1, with 68% usage of Dnipro.

Their other arguments against “campaign” in the title and against the general notability of the subject as a “separate phenomenon” ought to be addressed by proposing another title or deletion.

I am dismayed that @Marcelus repeats a personal attack that they already made on the original closer’s talk page, and that it was accepted without comment. Feeling the need to disparagingly label the person that makes an argument belies a lack of confidence in one’s own argument. That Marcelus declares their opposition to postcolonialism in history and decolonization of knowledge, processes that have influenced academic practices for six decades and is evident in today’s news, against the overwhelming evidence of directly relevant sources, goes beyond academic conservatism or systemic WP:BIAS, but looks like trying to WP:right great wrongs to me: they are, for whatever reason, opposing the consensus in reliable sources on this subject and refusing to follow them.

I didn’t “Ukrainianize” the topic of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Sources have de-Russified their language: their prevailing usage is by definition precisely neutral language, so please don’t listen to people intent on re-Russifying ours.  —Michael Z. 16:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Corrected figures due to initial miscount. —Michael Z. 01:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That Marcelus declares their opposition to postcolonialism in history and decolonization of knowledge, I never declared anything like this. Maybe I didn't make myself perfectly clear, but I don't think we are dealing with decolonization of anything here. First of all, because, as was mentioned in the discussion, the Dnieper is not a "Ukrainian" river, it does not belong to Ukraine exclusively, so it cannot be subject to this process. Secondly, the name "Dnieper" is not a "colonial" name, it is not a name imposed by the Russians on anyone, neither Ukrainians nor Anglo-Saxons. Besides, "decolonization" is not something we should be guided by when editing Wikipedia, it is your personal bias, which I mentioned in my comment, and which you mistakenly described as a "personal attack." looks like trying to WP:right great wrongs to me: they are, for whatever reason, opposing the consensus in reliable sources on this subject and refusing to follow them, but there is no such consensus, the sources used in the article do not form it, besides, as mentioned, the name "Dnieper/Dnipro campaign" does not appear in any of them, so they are completely useless in this regard. Marcelus (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources and their prevailing usage is the guide. The vast majority of sources for this subject use Dnipro.

(Why do you think their usage has changed? Decolonization is merely my summary explanation, but it doesn’t matter for this question. You’re the one that used the term to accuse me of doing something wrong.)

The links in the proposal are the evidence. Where’s yours?  —Michael Z. 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The links in the proposal are the evidence. Where’s yours?, evidence of what? Marcelus (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote “the sources cited do not meet the requirement of statistical reliability.” Then accused me of bad-faith editing with an outright lie: “The nominator simply collected several dozen sources that use his preferred name 'Dnipro', and for greater credibility he also provided several sources that use the name 'Dniper’.”  —Michael Z. 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I know what I wrote. Save us all time and provide sources that uses "Dnipro campaign" name Marcelus (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have provided sources supporting the change. You provide something other than slander supporting the status quo or whatever it is you want.  —Michael Z. 20:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't not, and you persistent denial of it starts being disruptive Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note - There is a argument raised here, that needs to be corrected. Just showing sources that mention "Dnipro" is not enough to prove that "2022–2023 Dnipro campaign" is the common name - You need to prove that "2022–2023 Dnipro campaign" as a continuous phrase is very common in RS. In this case, it is obviously not, as a google search will show (2 results out of 10,80,000, meaning very, very obscure). "Dnieper" vs "Dnipro" cannot be used to justify the proposed title as WP:COMMONNAME and as such tallying sources like this is rather useless.

As far as I see, the case for common name is not made, so we should use a descriptive title. In this case, we decide on the basis of other policies. WP:CONSUB would support the retention of the current title, as well as WP:PRECISION (owing to possible confusion between Dnipro the river and Dnipro the city). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose most often, English-language media uses Dnipro for the city and Dnieper for the river. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not true based on research by nominator. Please show evidence. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to provide 30 links to "counter-balance" the nom's evidence. Some of their references (such as understandingwar.org ) I discount entirely. Others, listed as "Dnipro" by the nom (such as RFERL and CNBC) actually use Dnieper. I have been watching US and UK media coverage of the war in Ukraine over the past year, and based on my experience, it is clear that they prefer Dnieper for the river and Dnipro for the town, especially in contexts where they might be confused (and the title here would certainly be a situation where they might be confused). Walt Yoder (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking, @Walt Yoder. It looks like I accidentally left the two first Dnieper citations at the end of the Dnipro list. Now corrected in the proposal. Did you check the rest?  —Michael Z. 01:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per consistency with the recent RM at Dnieper (which ended but no move). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure this represents any of the guidelines listed in WP:CONSISTENCY.  —Michael Z. 15:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading all of the above arguments raised and countered and seeing all the invocations of project namespace, it seems to me that there’s insufficient grounds to apply anything other than the English name of the river. I also think that the nominator is going too far in his efforts regarding place names. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  What does that mean?

  Firstly, the subject is not a place. Secondly, I file RMs that pass. Thirdly, I file RMs and gauge consensus in many cases where others would just move.

  Following sources is a fundamental principle, and as you can see by the range of votes, the right title in this case needs discussion and a survey to determine consensus. Just because you are against some moves is no reason to make up some kind of principle and declare that I’m habitually violating it. If you’ve seen another editor’s cut-and-paste comments in the past about my “disruptive campaign,” I suggest you not be so impressionable as to take up their disruptive, personal campaign too.  —Michael Z. 14:56, 18 June 2023 (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.

Mix-up sighting of ship Yuri Olefirenko

The article states that the ship was sighted on the 3rd of June, after the most recent Russian claims of sinking the ship. The article cited is about the sighting in June 2022, after a near-destruction event back then. Liekveel (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2023

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: no consensus/moved to Dnieper campaign (2022–present). No consensus for exactly what title was best, however there was consensus that the descriptor should be 2022–present rather than 2022–2023. No prejudice against further discussion regarding the article title (see WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2022–2023 Dnieper campaign → Dnieper clashes (2022–present) – In my opinion, "clashes" is more correct, as it's not a proper campaign like the Eastern Ukraine campaign. The "(2022–present)" seems to be more appropriate, and more consistent.

No opposition to Dnieper campaign (2022–present) if others prefer. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• With clashes I'd believe when reading the title that both Russia and Ukraine attacked each other across the Dnieper. However, it's only been Ukrainian incursions into Russian-held territory. How about Ukrainian incursions across the Dnieper (2022–present)? Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support “2022–present.” No opinion on “clashes,” as Ukrainian forces seem to have had a continual or continuous presence on the left bank for some time, and have now apparently established a bridgehead on the islands connected to the left bank: arguably a campaign intended to fix Russian forces in the region and perhaps exploit the crossing if possible.  —Michael Z. 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 09:53, 6 July 2023 (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.

Why not simply "Dnieper campaign"?

The article Dnieper campaign doesn't even exist, so why even include a disambiguator? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I changed the name of the article. Parham wiki (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki: Thanks. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this. There are other similar campaigns and battles on the river, I don't think this is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. HappyWith (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Chronological

I think it might be better to restructure this article in a more chronological way. It's not like most of these sectors are having major developments at the same time, and it is more natural from the perspective of a reader who isn't super-familiar with the names of every little island and bridgehead. HappyWith (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Forks

Why do the tiny war subsections on pages like [[Ostriv Velykyi Potomkin]] and [[Kinburn Spit]] have more info about the campaign in those places than this article itself? We should merge and centralize most of the info into this page, and briefly describe summarize the events in the pages about the geographic objects. We shouldn't be linking readers away to sub-subsections of pages about various geographical objects to learn about the main topic of the article. HappyWith (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: I agree. Either expand or merge. In fact, we should merge to either Southern Ukraine campaign (its information is woefully incomplete) or 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive (especially the more recent incursions). This article is out of date, very short, and has very little information. 🐔dat (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)