This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It is requested that an imageorphotographofBattle of Enerhodarbeincluded in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
"Alleged" is really the word here. "Grenades" is not very specific but the nature of the grenades allegedly used would be very relevant to the nature of the claim. Soldiers targeting civilians with frag grenades would almost certainly constitute a war crime the same as trying to shoot them. But using shock grenades or the like would not be. Lethal vs non-lethal force. So is the claim that this was a full-on frag grenade? That would seem a rather extraordinary claim given how close the people in the video is to the blast. If the video is to be trusted that is, because strictly speaking - it doesn't show a grenade (neither thrown or launched), it only shows an explosion. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that Ukrinform article is kinda sketchy. The picture of the frag grenade is clearly a stock image and the entire “article” is a single sentence.
I asked about that in the talk page of the article earlier today. I think someone prematurely updated the map without double checking, thinking that the plants being captured meant the city being captured. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the mayor saying that the city council building has been taken with most council members relocating to a local pizzeria to operate out of. Spaceman2288 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Battle of Enerhodar → Siege of Enerhodar – On 1 March when "Russian forces had surrounded the city", it became a siege which lasted four days. The event lasted 5 days, but 4 of the 5 days was a siege, meaning it should be Siege of Enerhodar instead of Battle of Enerhodar. Noting this was WP:BOLD moved[1] to the current name. The old name was "Siege of Enerhodar".Elijahandskip (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was the one who moved the page from SiegetoBattle. Why? Because I was unable to find enough reliable sources referring to this as a siege. In contrast, there were many reliable sources using the terms attackorbattle. For Wikipedia to refer to something as a siege, it should be a widely-used term in reliable sources. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - and every single one of the first 20 I checked are using the word siege to talk about Mariupol, and mentioning Enerhodar elsewhere in the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and alternative: Having googled news sources for the two terms and looked at a sample of these, I am not seeing either of the two names being used. I would conclude that neither satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. There are no Google Scholar sources. In the absence of anything that comes close to a common name for the event in sources, it is up to us to select a name that is most appropriate. The fighting was over in about a five day period. This is not consistent with the conventional use of the term siege, which usually involves conquest by attrition or a deliberate attack requiring extended preparation. Using "battle of" tends to imply a common name status that doesn't exist. I would therefore propose "battle for Enerhodar" as a better alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to propose a merge to Southern Ukraine campaign. It appears that some Russian troops moved around for a few days and eventually a firefight took place here for a few hours in the early morning of 4 March. This would not be a significant event but for its location, and even still, it is not referred to as a "battle" in reliable sources. This page could be easily made into a paragraph of the proposed target; indeed, much of the information already exists there. Looking forward to hearing my fellow editors' thoughts. Thank you for reading. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. While the capture of the power plant may have some enduring notability, the engagement leading to it is insufficient for a stand alone article. The capture of the town is only a footnote. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - Nah, no need for a merge. The campaign/offensive article should summarize the information and the individual battles/engagements should be stand-alone articles. The battle got a ton of international media attention. Even the capture of the nuclear power plant still gets RS mentions years later: The Guardian (March 2024). Full RS articles dedicated just to the battle/power plant capture exist as well. Example is "What we know about Russia's capture of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power complex" by NPR right after the battle concluded. So no, I am not in support of a merge, as this would merge a notable event. This article, with improvement, can also reach GA status in my opinion. I recently worked on Battle of Kherson, and got it almost ready for a GAN to start. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others have said, the lasting significance here lies in the capture and occupation of the power plant, not the battle itself. The occupation is already covered in its own article, so we can move the battle itself to the Southern Ukraine Campaign article. Alternatively, I think it would also be fine to just merge into the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis article itself, which seems to be lacking any information on the capture of the city. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
