Talk:Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900–1999)

message: Stadnick,
why the recent move has been done? Did it have a discussion/consensus (I don't see such)?  So it should be reverted, many important information were lost.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good split of a very large article and I thank Sladnick for it. I don't see any information being lost, can you provide an example? I would only remind that the edit summary for the new article should include a reference to the original article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information before 1900, important geopolitical changes. What new article are you referring? However, for such move and harsh trimming the article without consensus is not viable. I'll wait one reply from Stadnick, but after the earlier status will be restored.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1900). Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

text: That consensus was not for this, but an other splitting. However, since Onetwothreeip let me know nothing is lost, I tend to accept if others won't object.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: I can't see this being either useful or maintainable. They were bold, I reverted, they decided to revert again and I have no patience for that nonsense anymore. But, I'll try to do more than they did and discuss. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the discussion brought up by Golbez has two parts, "Useful" and "maintainable".  I am commenting on the "maintainable" aspect, as I believe it is very easy to maintain this.  Only the completed battles/attacks of the war are documented here, and that only means ones Russia wins is documented here (As when Russia wins, territory changes).  I have been working on the Weather of 2022 timelines and charts, and those are a lot more complex and harder to maintain than this would be, so I strongly believe this would be easy to maintain.  I feel the discussion should be about it being useful instead. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "When Russia wins, territory changes" Are you saying that if I published a map today, it would be inaccurate unless I drew Chernobyl as being part of Russia, despite Russia not claiming it? --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you are taking it out of context.  For example, according to the chart, 1940, July 1, "The Bailiwick of Jersey is occupied by Nazi Germany".  The argument you used could be the exact same for that, if you were to draw a map for July 2, 1940, would you say Jersey is Germany?  No.  They just occupied the territory.  Same thing for these.  Russia hasn't annexed anything, they just militarily occupy it.  Actually based on that example listed there, not including these new territorial occupations would mean all the WWII things in 1940 would need to have notability questioned unless they were directly annexed. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair - not everything has to be claimed to be noted. But I would argue that the whole political unit of Jersey was part of a wartime occupation, and had to be administered as such, and that sets it apart from simple troop movements. Like, we don't have each town the allies took in Italy along the way, and I would argue we have way too much detail in wartime movements anyway. And you are arguing for including something as miniscule as an airport, an uninhabited region, and an island with no civilian population. This is way too much detail, and way too recent. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Detail is the name of this section basically.  I assume you mean the uninhabited region for the Chernobyl entry, for one, that is hugely significant with radiation alerts being send out about that and Europe going to DEFCON 2 (Invasion article).  Also, uninhabited entries are listed like November 24, 2009 (US uninhabited island note).  The airport houses the worlds aircraft.  The island, assuming you mean Snake Island, did have a “population”, if you count the 13 soldiers who died during the Russian attack.  If you read the attack’s article, you would notice that it was an insignificant battle that became significant due to media attention.  I think it is good to question the entries, but with some very insignificant entries already listed (in years past), I would say some detail is ok.  Also, modern wars are fought one of two ways. Guerrilla warfare, meaning almost no territory changes, or invasion style, like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or Allied invasion of France/Germany in WWII, where territory will change rapidly. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro paragraph says, "Territorial conquests as a result of war are included on the timeline at the conclusion of military campaigns, but changes in the course of specific battles and day-to-day operations are generally not included." Thought this was relevant, the word generally means it still is up to debate but this is usually not included. --Pithon314 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle, BUT I would still suggest continuing to add the day-to-day changes while the war is ongoing (for present usability and to easily show how the territory has been changing), and then collate any and all eventual "fixed" (using the term loosely) changes once we're sure the war has ended (for now). DrWhoFanJ (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible middle ground could be to include only battles with wikipedia pages of their own? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

text:  Minor correction... Recent reports have demonstrated that the 13 Ukrainian soldiers in the Snake Island battle did not die but were instead taken captive by the Russian military and were subsequently released. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

text: This issue seems to be still ongoing. In my opinion, it is strange that the conflict in Ukraine has day-to-day documentation of every sub-conflict that occurs within it (i.e. battles), whereas all of the other conflicts on this page just have a single blanket statement for the entire conflict. For example, the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its subsequent takeover by the Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) only has a single entry in this list. So, why does Ukraine have dozens of entries? It should really just be one big entry for the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine", with everything else listed within that entry. All of these sub-conflicts are obviously related to one another and don't warrant separate entries for each and every one of them. 159.196.168.62 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

text: ^The above comment was made by me when I was logged out. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Another comment... Bear in mind that this entire article is about "geopolitical changes". It's not just about wars. For example, there are numerous entries about border (including maritime) demarcations, which don't necessarily involve conflict. And there are entries about countries changing their official names, which usually doesn't involve conflict either. Entries about Ukraine are only useful to the extent that they describe the war/invasion as a whole. Taken in the context of the entire article, it is a case of Wikipedia:UNDUE to mention every battle within the entire conflict. It is only useful to mention sub-conflicts of the war when they involved distinct but related situations. For example, the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk by Russia deserves to have a separate entry even though it is heavily connected to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine and occurred only a few days beforehand. But, for another example, the situations in Mariupol, Kyiv, Chernobyl, and Kherson all belong together because these cities are all wholly included within the territory of Ukraine, rather than being distinctive regions. Subdivisions of Ukraine should not be given separate entries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day-to-day military movements in Ukraine 

message: Is this event significant enough to be written about in this Wikipedia list? The original transfer of the islands (between Egypt and Saudi Arabia) took place in 2017, but it was only finalised in July 2022 when Israel agreed to the terms surrounding the transfer. This final act might not constitute a geopolitical change in and of itself, but it might be relevant to mention as an addendum in the original 2017 entry in this list. Saudi-Israel normalization Red Sea deal | Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: that's an interesting question,. but I think it doesn't quite meet the level of significance of this article. i could be wrong though,. I will look this data over. Sm8900 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel green-lights Red Sea islands transfer (from Egypt to Saudi Arabia) 

message: We're 22 years into the 21st century and this article is exhausting to scroll through. I think everything after 2000 should go onto its own page 74.64.122.27 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree, and I was about to be bold and make the change. Amorim Parga (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th Century vs 21st Century