Revision as of 09:18, 20 April 2016 editHogg 22 (talk | contribs)409 edits →user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:13, 22 December 2024 edit undo2605:b100:d21:1394:cd62:31a2:1559:c404 (talk) →Fix some places in the template: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{anchor|merger of modules}}{{tmbox | |||
| type = notice | |||
| image = ] | |||
| text = '''OVERVIEW MODULE MERGED INTO DETAILED MODULE''' | |||
<br>{{color|red|Module:Syrian Civil War overview map WAS MERGED INTO Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (SEE TALK PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS). PLEASE ONLY EDIT DETAILED MODULE}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Old AfD multi | date = 23 July 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War}} | {{Old AfD multi | date = 23 July 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War}} | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} | {{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} | ||
{{Not a forum}} | {{Not a forum}} | ||
{{central|Template talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map|Module talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List| | |||
{{WikiProject Military history |class=List |B-Class-1<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->=no |B-Class-2<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->=no |B-Class-3<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->=yes |B-Class-4<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->=yes |B-Class-5<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->=yes |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes}} | {{WikiProject Military history |class=List |B-Class-1<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->=no |B-Class-2<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->=no |B-Class-3<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->=yes |B-Class-4<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->=yes |B-Class-5<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->=yes |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject Syria |
{{WikiProject Syria |importance=Mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject Cities |
{{WikiProject Cities |importance=}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{central|Template talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map}} | |||
{{Syrian Civil War sanctions}} | |||
{{anchor|Rules for editing the map}}{{tmbox | {{anchor|Rules for editing the map}}{{tmbox | ||
| type = notice | | type = notice | ||
| image = ] | | image = ] | ||
| text = '''Rules for Editing the Map''' | | text = '''Rules for Editing the Map''' | ||
Line 28: | Line 32: | ||
3- '''WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated.''' If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. | 3- '''WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated.''' If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| algo = old(90d) | |||
|archiveheader = {{tan}} | |||
| archive = Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive %(counter)d | |||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
|counter = |
| counter = 65 | ||
| maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
|minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old(7d) | |||
| minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|archive = Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{archives |search=yes |auto=short|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age= |
{{archives |search=yes |auto=short|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |units=days |index=/Archive index }} | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
== |
== Too many templates == | ||
<!-- ] 05:05, 1 April 2027 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1806555938}} | |||
It appears that this article would require restructuring or splitting, as it is has too many templates in use, starting to break some functionality. Please see ] for more information on an example. Thanks, ] (]) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|LightandDark2000}} I noticed your edit summary when you removed the warning. I will try to explain more precisely here. The issue is that the allowed delay for server-side template expansion is being exceeded. At some point in the page, all templates stop working. See for instance the "Template:Reflist" at the bottom, where the footnote citations would normally display. Also note the page loading time, most of which is because of the server-side delay before the page is being sent to the browser (~10 seconds allowed cpu time). This also causes the article to automatically be included in the special category ]. Also, if you go into edit/preview mode, at the bottom under "Parser profiling data" can be seen the report. Thanks, —<span style="color:#092;background:#444;font-family:mono,sans;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;">░]]█ ⏎ ?]░</span> 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
There are unconfirmed reports IS cut the Khanasser Road again. I have not made any edits, as its just twitter rumors right now. But we need to keep an eye out here for more information as it comes in. ] (]) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I think that the server-loading issues has more to do with the amount of data/objects in the module itself, not in the templates used. For example, the sheer number of objects/locations in the Syrian Civil War module alone is probably what caused the Middle East conflicts detailed map module to crash in the first place. That issue is still unresolved, by the way. ] (]) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
: ] It is a fals news. Crediable sources said that SAA counterattacked ratake several villages and push ISIS to east. ] (]) 07:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
== An Important Message for ALL Map Editors: Please Refrain from Adding Extra, Nonessential Villages == | |||
== Al rai & Qabassin == | |||
<!-- ] 05:05, 1 April 2027 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1806555938}} | |||
{{ping|EkoGraf|Tradedia|Paolowalter|Spesh531|Niele~enwiki|Mehmedsons}} Hi there. This is LightandDark2000. Today, I noticed a massive issue with some of the larger map modules that has the Syrian Civil War map integrated into them. The ] had crashed nearly a year ago because too many items/locations have been added to this Syrian Civil War map. Today, the addition of even more villages caused the smaller ] to crash as well. I had to go back and delete a dozen or so villages in order to get that map working again; as for the larger Middle East map, a much larger reduction would be needed (which will require the efforts of multiple users to get it done), which I will not attempt at this time. So please, '''DO NOT ADD any extra insignificant villages or locations unless absolutely necessary''', otherwise we will have more map modules breaking down. If people continue to add more items to this map casually, ''eventually, even the Syrian Civil War Map will crash as well''. Instead, extra villages from inactive fronts or crowded areas need to be deleted/cleaned up. In the past, we've had a couple of diligent users who helped clean up and de-cluttered in active fronts once the fighting shifted away from an area, which kept this problem from ever happening before. However, this maintenance stopped over 1 year ago, and with the addition so many villages and localities since then, this map has become extremely cluttered and ''very burdensome on the Wikimedia Foundation's systems''. Because of this, we have to maintain the map ourselves. So, to everyone who views or edits this map, please be very careful with your editing in the future. Thank you. | |||
::The larger map modules seem to break down if the Syrian Civil War map exceeds '''a size of 756,000 bytes'''. As a result, I think that we need to reduce the map to at least 750,000 bytes, or even 700,000 bytes to be safer. To restore the Middle East Conflicts map, a reduction to 600,000 or 500,000 bytes will probably be needed, but I will wait for user input before attempting to restore the larger Middle East map. ] (]) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::For starters, the Afrin, Latakia, and East Aleppo (Deir Hayfer) areas need to be decluttered/cleaned up. Eventually, I will start by removing minor villages from the Afrin District, because it appears to be the single most crowded place on this map away from any active fronts, which also happens to be jammed with too many insignificant villages to make things worse. ] (]) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Removing villages on the Syrian map is a good way to keep map size down. However, the easiest way to do this without removing settlement data is to remove mountains and hills that are far behind the frontlines. Many of the hills in Latakia province and west of Palmyra could be erased without taking away anything important from the map. Do you agree? ] (]) 00:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
How come al rai and qabassin have smaller dots than Tal rifat and mare? My hometown kibessine is almost as big as mare yet its showed as a little village. Also the kurdish name of it should be written under kabassin in kurdish we say başhkêy which is the old name. and how come afrin is shown as big as tal rifat? There are hundreds of thousands of kurds and some arabs from aleppo that live in afrin now. it should be as big as azaz. | |||
:Yes, of course. Some mountain peaks and hills should be kept, but a large number of them can be removed. Unfortunately, the problem has grown so large that many of the villages have to go as well. The Afrin and Latakia areas could seriously use some cleanup, for starters. BTW, this discussion should go under the heading in the Syrian Civil War map's talk page, because this is such a big issue. ] (]) 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The Afrin District should be reduced to the level that it was at about a year ago . (Note: Please ''do not'' submit the changes in the preview link. Instead, enter in one of the map module's titles, such as Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, into the "Preview Title" bar and hit "Show preview".) ] (]) 01:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: '''No it doesn't'''. Removing villages from map is considered vandalism. Most certainly in a now important conflict area as Afrin. | |||
::: If the it would be a problem for users that there are to many objects on the map, the module should be split in different modules for east, north, west and south Syria. Or by creating a seperate light weight and a detailed map. But certainly not by removing valuable data. | |||
::: The syrian detailled map should not consider problems resulting from the creation of a Middle East conflict map having to many objects. | |||
::: Someone can make a 'world conflict' map with all conflict data included from whole the world, but that's their responsibility. This should NOT result in reduction of the importand level of detail of the detailled 'one country'-maps. | |||
--] (]) 09:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: '''A better sollution''' would also be to place all villages larger then size 6 or 7 and all object smaller then size 5 or 6 into '''two separate modules.''' | |||
:::: And let the '''Middle-East and multi-country''' conflict maps, '''include only the module with larger villages and towns'''. | |||
:::: While '''one-country-maps''' shows the '''detailled module with smaller villages that also includes the module with larger villages and towns'''.--] (]) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
] Is not a good decision we can't just removed villages. We not have this problem earlier but if we begin remove villages be will broke the a real situation at the ground. I against such action, we need another decision. ] (]) 10:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::: It will also be intelligent to remove some detailed map as qamishli or aleppo who are closed front or nearly totally red. I think that we should remove some of the villages situed in the large desertic spaces controlled by SDF in northern Syria and use a more extensively the icon rural presence <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:]] We can removed villages and checkpoints which present at our map and also accurately marked at such maps as Rif Aleppo2.svg, Rif Damashq.svg, Battle of Daraa City.svg and others. Here is an example: ] (]) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: I also remove unused links. ] (]) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
: I agree on the proposal of removing villages cluttering areas far behind the front lines. In addition to the areas alreasy mentioned, also north Raqqah and north Hasaka are presented in too detail. We can also remove yellow points on the detailed Raqqah map where it is already yellow. Probably Aleppo can just become a large red dot. ] (]) 22:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Kafr Bassil == | |||
=== You can use 25% more points now === | |||
There is a small village named Kafr Bassil which is just west of Shaykh Miskin. Haven't heard if SAA have taken the village, but I think if we at some point have the sources to put this village as either rebel held or government held, we should do that. Given the current situation, i think every village is worth mapping, since the Daraa region is getting "hotter" atm. | |||
{{ping|LightandDark2000|EkoGraf|Tradedia|Paolowalter|Spesh531|Niele~enwiki|Mehmedsons|TheNavigatrr}} I just make an edit to ] to make it substantially more efficient. You can now use about 25% more points than you used to without exceeding the size limit. ] (]) 21:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
:Welcome back ]. We all appreciate your efforts over the years. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::It's still best to be as efficient as possible. But thanks. The changes should significantly ease the burden on the map. ] 🌀 (]) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Change color for HTS == | |||
The Syrian army have taken alle the strategic places around Shaykh Miskin, I find i hard to believe that the rebel still control the small village of Kafr Bassil just west of Shaykh Miskin. The village is also being shown as government controlled in maps (i know we can't make changes due to maps or twitter claims) | |||
@] @] Wouldn't be better use some sort of greenish/blue for HTS territory/control as the territory is actually mixed HTS & SNA control, or at least is not clear, yet. A lot of sources online such as liveuamap indeed uses some sort of green, and use white for the no man's land caused by SAA forces withrawing from the north-east, creating some sort of vacuum? ] (]) 10:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Should we cut the Aleppo map to half of what it is now? == | |||
:There's a half-and-half icon for mixed control. I remember the Ukraine map used some shade of gray for uncontrolled territory, though I can't remember what shade it was and HTS already uses gray. ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
We should make the Local Map only as it appears on on top of the main map. Anything east beyind the Airport (or east beyond the Industrial City) will no longer need any color changing on the Local Map, only on the Main map. Also, these areas are no longer contested and quite far from where the action is. They are not in the city anyway. | |||
:We can do the same thing we did for the Israel/Palestine map, which is use two different shades of green: | |||
*] ] | |||
*] ] | |||
:Lets make HTS ] lime green. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Since there are no objections, I will make HTS ] lime green. HTS is now the core of the opposition, so it makes sense for it to be in a shade of green. Also, both "green" groups are supported by Turkey. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Are ] local or opposition? == | |||
Thank you | |||
@], in the south, cities like ] are controlled by the newly formed Southern Operations Room. The article describes this as ''"a Syrian rebel coalition consisting of various armed Druze tribes and Syrian opposition groups in southern Suwayda and Quneitra provinces."'' Should we consider them an opposition or a local group, or do they merit their own colour? <span class="nowrap">—<code>]</code> (])</span> 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Eastern Qalamoun == | |||
:They seem to be in opposition. Many also seem to be formerly reconciled rebels who rose back up, and Druze militias only seem to be in certain parts, like Suwayda. most of the others are under the new SOR who are former FSA ] (]) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
There is a significant amount of fighting going on in in this area and I am pretty sure some parts of the map are either incomplete or simply wrong. Batallion 559 and the junction chechepoint are already put as IS held. But, because of troop movement in the area I am sincerely doubting that Rebels are holding the following places: Khirbat Butaymat, Saba Bayer, Rujm Mamur, and possibly Sad Rishe. If anybody has sources that they're actually Rebel and not IS held I'll retract my statement. | |||
:I believe they merit their own color at this point, now that they've been firmly established as a formal coalition. Sources didn't describe them as such when they seized their first towns. ] (]) 23:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think they are opposition. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== outdated == | |||
Furthermore, Khan Abu al Shamat and possibly the Badia Cement plant should be put on the map, and should be monitored the next fews days because some minor social media stuff has shown IS attacks. I believe it is SAA held, but there are reports of IS capturing the area, but they're all based on preliminairy Twitter stuff. Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.704349&lon=37.009163&z=12&m=b Sources: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emir-damascus-killed-failed-eastern-qalamoun-offensive/, https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-repels-isis-attack-qalamoun-kills-top-emir/, | |||
is someone going to update this to make it mine in line with current situation? ] (]) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ISIS retakes al-Rai == | |||
== Why so many red dots == | |||
Pro opp twitter claims ISIS has unpicked the rebels' recent advances in N Aleppo.] (]) 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: SOHR also said that ISIS retake Al Rai and villages of Tal Shair,Qanitrah,Qarah Kuz,Kasajik,Tathumus and opposition sources said that ISIS retake town Al Rai and villages of Tathumus,Qanitrah,Qarah Kuz,Mazra'at Shahin,Kasajik,Tal Shair also reliable source Al Masdar said that the ISIS reverses all rebel gains and more in northern Aleppo. ] (]) 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: So I realy think that after rebels lose Al Rai and some other importent villages to west of this town they also lost a several small villages(Haddabat,Buzlijah, Molla Yakup) to east of Al Rai. And also for now unknow fate of three small villages (Al-Raghbiyah, Tal Ahmar, Shabaniyah) and village of Waqf which now located between ISIS-held a village Kiebe and a town Al Rai. What your think guys? ] (]) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: Pro-opp. activist from Twitter reported that ISIS retake all area between Al Rain and Tathumus where located a villages of (Al-Raghbiyah, Tal Ahmar, Shabaniyah) and also take village Tal Battal in addition to twelve villages which they seized earlier. also source said that all rebel forces retreated on their positions from which thaey started ofensive to take Al Rai. And these data confirm that rebels lose all villages east of Al Rai(Haddabat,Buzlijah, Molla Yakup) and all villages between ISIS-held Tal Battal and Al Rai including village of Waqf south of Al Rai. ] (]) 10:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: Another opp. source Aleppo24 also said that ISIS captured Al Rai and the surrounding villages including Tal Battal but also said that later local factions managed to regain control of the village of Tal Battal. ] (]) 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: Reliable source Al Masdar also said that the over the past 48 hours, ISIS has launched an astonishing counter-offensive in northern Aleppo and recapturing all villages(Tathumus, Qanitrah, Molla Yaqup, Hadabat, Wuquf, Mazra’at Shahin, Kasajik, Tall Shair, Tall al-Ahmar, Tall Sufayr, Kassajiq and the border-town of Al-Rai itself) lost to rebels in the past week. and that the latest skirmishes are reportedly taking place on the outskirts of Dudiyan and Mare’ as rebel troops are doing all they can to prevent further ISIS gains. ] (]) 12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::: Other opp. activist said ISIS also captured village . ] (]) 12:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::: Opposition source Step News said ISIS retake more than 10 villages north of Aleppo. ] (]) 14:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: Opp. source said that the rebels retake villages Kasajek,Mazrat Shahin,Tal Shair, Khamaliyah,Al Ahmadiyah, Khalfatli and Tal Battal. and SOHR also rported that the rebels retake many villages from ISIS. ] (]) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: Who made Hawer Killis IS held? FSA still holds it. The only one claiming IS holds it is Jack Shahine who is spreading nonsense about a massacre there, while castigating Lister on Twitter. ] (]) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: ] Opp. source LCCSy said that ISIS take village Hawr Killis in Azaz District. and this also confirmed other source. ] (]) 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf7_vE0WsAAIpxg.jpg Amaq, only claims a car bomb attack on Hawar Killis. If they held it, Amaq would be trumpeting it. And FSA tweets would be mentioning it. ] (]) 19:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: ] Opp. activist in Twitter said that after regaining control over the village of Hawr Killis near Azaz ISIS executed seven captured Opposition fighters. But I edit this village as ISIS-held on based data from opposition source and other source which is said that ISIS captured this village. If this not true and we have confirmations from crediable source I do self revert and again put this village to under control of rebels. You can give me link on ISIS source which said abiut bomb attack in vilage Hawar Killis. ] (]) 20:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: https://twitter.com/sam_samson24/status/720325970125688832 Okay here is the Wiyalet Halab announcement of 7 FSA fighters captured, but not from Hawar Killis, video has been deleted by the servers. https://twitter.com/elaaide2/status/720296491978461184 A translated Amaq release from today again mentions just a SVBIED attack. These are all from Amaq which disseminates its message through social media. All FSA sources deny Hawar Killis fell and there is no IS source saying it fell. So far it looks like Jack Shahine created the rumor and others picked it up. But Amaq and IS are not claiming to hold it nor are their usual twitter bugs. SOHR has not mentioned it, nor did its director on his personal Twitter account. ] (]) 20:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: ] Also here original report about Martyrdom operation in the village of Hawar Kilis from Amaq. And yes this a very strange that a pro-ISIS sources not claime that ISIS take this village. ] (]) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: ] And I looked on a page of Jack Shahine and he is not a primary source of these data. He take these data from this source Fraternity Foundation This a source which I used together with the opposition source for edit Hawar Killis. ] (]) 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: Yet all other sources including IS deny. If IS is denying the claim, I think we should revert, especially as Wiyalet Halab isn't claiming it. ] (]) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:] Opposition source Qasioun News said that the ISIS captured villages of Hawar Killis and Baraghidah and Kafr Ghan. ] (]) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: SOHR also said that ISIS captured villages Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez. ] (]) 07:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: According to opp. source and other source Ikidah(Zayzafun) and Kafr Shush taken ISIS. But unclear situation with Hawr Killis. Opp. sources and ISIS sources yesterday and today said that ISIS take this village but later opp. source said thay they retake Hawar Killis. Maybe in someone have a more data? ] (]) 09:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:SOHR said that rebels retake 3 villages (Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul) but 3 villages still ISIS-held. ] (]) 09:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
There are many red dots that's implying that bashar controlling this cities while rebels entered many of this red dots like Al-Qusayr and Al-Qaryatayn and Latakia ] (]) 16:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Brig. 550, north of Palmyra == | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024 == | |||
It seems that north of Palmyra there must be some changes. Either to black or to contested: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-threatens-liberated-palmyra/ ] (]) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: ] Source not said that Brigade 550 under control of ISIS or contested. Source just said that ISIS presence in area of this base. We can edit military base only if a source clear indicate which side is controll army base or that this base contested. But source ealy said that the SAA retake a base of Brigade 550 from ISIS. Source not said that SAA lose Brigade 550 so we can't edit this point on based just assumptions or based own interpretation of the data. ] (]) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map|answered=yes}} | |||
:: ] I see what you mean. There is no direct mention, that the base fall to ISIS. But, what means exactly when they say: "ISIS is pushing '''south of the Brigade''' 550 Base"? For me that means, if we suppose, that ISIS did not take the base (I agree with you), that they are in fact south of the base and pushing further south, not necessarily through the base, but by bypassing it either from west or east. Do you agree with me at least on that understanding of the sentence? ] (]) 20:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
I want to replace all the red dots (gov) to opposition (green) i already done that in the bigger towns but for the smaller one is protected. | |||
::: ] It's just a suggestion and their can be very much. The source could simply make a mistake in the report, and in fact ISIS push south to Brigade 550 or near this base. Also source said that Brigade 550 it is the last military installation before the Al-‘Amariyah District in northern Palmyra. So if we make the assumption then in this case the most probable thing is that source just wanted said that ISIS pushes of south toward this base. However, so for now we only have clear data which confirm that SAA retake Brigade 550 from ISIS and nothing more specific. So accoeding to rules we can do edit only if we have data from crediable source which can provide this edit. Source only said about ISIS presence somewhere in area this base and nothing more but this not enoth for edit status of this military base. ] (]) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
The map.now.is misleading and it impley that al assad control so many towns in syria ] (]) 13:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: I did not mention anything about changing colours. I even agreed with you. I was only thinking about the meaning of the sentence. ;-) ] (]) 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry but I had to revert all your edits. We cannot just make all the red be opp/green. If you look at the caption of the map, opp/green correspond to "Syrian Interim Government (SNA) and Turkish Armed Forces." However, most of the places that were red, have fallen to HTS and allies or Southern Operations Room. So we need to be careful when we get out of the red color to go to the correct color of the correct military group. Also, the caption is outdated and i will be writing a new one. I will be also making big changes to the structure of the template/module soon... ]<sup>]</sup> 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:] Thanks for replying i think for now we have to get rid of the red dots and then see who control what because for example if we look at Damascus it's in dark green colour which imply according to the caption that it's control by the turkish backed rebels while in reality the new prime minister of Syria is from hts and their leader al goulani and his army currently control Damascus | |||
I have a suggestion that we simplify the map into only 4 groups. (Opposition which include all non turkish backed rebels - turkish backed rebels - sdf - Israel which control few towns in their latest invasion in south syria). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Well, i don't see why we would do this, when the Institute for the Study of War (Critical Threats Team from Interactive Map: Assessed Control of Terrain in Syria. 2024, December. ArcGIS StoryMaps; Esri. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/1933cb1d315f4db3a4f4dcc5ef40753a see their picture map that i put here) is able to give the different groups of rebels, and we are supposedly a "detailed" map. By the way, you are correct that Damascus does not have the right color on our map. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Israel desperately needs to be added to the map given their incursion into southern Syria | |||
::Unfortunately, the traditional blue dot for Israeli control is already occupied by the southern front rebels which creates some issue with marking who controls what and may lead to a misleading picture as far as icons goes (like say, Israel is cyan color while south front rebels are blue, thus implying that south front rebels are aligned with Israel). | |||
::My proposal for a solution is to change up a few faction colors in order to add Israel while painting an overall clear picture of who's aligned with who and who's against who | |||
::- SNA would be dark green dots (Location dot green) | |||
::- HTS would be standard green dots (Dot green 0d0) | |||
::- South Front would be lime green (Location dot lime) | |||
::- Israel would be blue | |||
::And obviously, we need to deal with all the red dots lying around the country. I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that most of the red dots are HTS-controlled, though it will be tricky for the Aleppo countryside - I think SNA controls the former YPG areas and everything east of the Aleppo airport, while HTS controls everything else. So basically aligned with what the ISW map shows as far as the Aleppo countryside goes. ] (]) 18:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There might be a technical problem with your proposal. The dark green dot (Location dot green) and the standard green dot (Dot green 0d0) share the same icons (other than the dot). For example, they both have the same icons for Besieged one side ], enemy pressure) ], Military base ], Strategic hill ], Oil/gas ], Airport/Air base (plane) ], Helicopter base ], etc... | |||
:::So if you confirm that this is indeed a problem, then i can propose 2 solutions: | |||
::#-We go back to grey for HTS&allies and we make the southern front rebels lime. | |||
::#-We create new SVG picture icons (i don't know how to do it). ]<sup>]</sup> 19:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::#:Aye it is indeed a problem. I've made icons for contested animated gifs, but I've no clue how to recolor the other icons, much less make them SVG files as well. If I knew how to do it, I'd do it. | |||
::#:Otherwise, we could go forward two ways: | |||
::#:- The consistent solution: Grey for HTS, but SNA is dark green and South Front is standard green (dot green 0d0) - given that all other icons for SNA control save for the settlements are already dark green like the hills and bases | |||
::#:- The lazy solution: Grey for HTS, SNA stays the same, and South Front is lime green | |||
::#:I don't really care either way, but I figured it'd be fair to propose both solutions. ] (]) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::You are right, the icons for SNA are dark green (except for dot green 0d0). So to be consistent, we can use for SNA, dark green (Location dot green). In this case, we use lime for South Front. We cannot use standard green (dot green 0d0) for South Front because we don't have icons corresponding to standard green (dot green 0d0). I checked that we have ] contested dark green/yellow and ] stable dark green/yellow, which could come handy (also we have ] contested dark green/black, ] contested dark green/lime and ] contested dark green/blue). And HTS in grey. | |||
::::::Concerning all the red dots lying around the country, I agree with you. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Dark Green for SNA, Grey for HTS, Lime for South Front | |||
:::::::Aye, we're in agreement then | |||
:::::::If needed, I'll pitch in on the map sometime later this week. I can't promise 100% accuracy in the fine details, but it'll be better than seeing all that red lying around. | |||
:::::::A small warning for any editors who wish to pitch in and add in SDF control: "location dot yellow" isn't what's on the map, all that yellow you see is actually "Dot yellow ff4", which was created because "location dot yellow" is too hard to see on a white background. I brought this up because Maskaneh was marked with "location dot yellow", which I have since corrected. ] (]) 03:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Sounds good. I will advance the work whenever i can... ]<sup>]</sup> 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I have implemented the color changes, all we have to do is fine tune the details at least. I'll do the work whenever I can as well, I have a busy week ahead of me... ] (]) 03:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Big changes to the structure of the template/module== | |||
:::::We can now confirm that IS either retook it or that reports of it losing it are incorrect. This is the second article implying (this time actually stating) that it is under IS control. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-launches-large-scale-campaign-strike/ Also, it is the second to mention Al Bardeh, a significant village that I cannot find on wikimapia or our own map. Could it be an alternative translation of Al-Baydhah, or some other village? In which case, we need to change the mark of that village to black. ] (]) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: ] Source just said that Syrian Air Force targeted ISIS positions at(near) Brigade 550 near the Al-‘Amariyah District. When source said "at" this means near or in vicinity. ] (]) 09:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
I plan on making big changes to the structure of the template/module. This include: | |||
::When they were referring to Arak and Suknah, they wrote "at" and IS is "in" them; I thought it would be safe to say that therefore, when they say IS is "entrenched at" Brigade 550, they control it. ] (]) 09:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
#-Merging "Module:Syrian Civil War overview map" into "Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map". The reason we split the old module into 2 modules no longer exists. It is simpler to just have everything back into one module. | |||
::: No! SAF strike ISIS position inside Arak and Sukhah and all area along road from Palmyra to Sukhah and about this also reported SOHR and many oher sources. But source earlier clear without any questions said that SAA retake Brigade 550 from ISIS and we only can change status of this strategic base if source clear said that ISIS retake or SAA retreated from this base. I realy think that we can't edit status of strategic towns, military bases or facilities on based not clear data. ] (]) 10:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Merge done}} | |||
{{anchor|merger of modules}}{{tmbox | |||
== Hawar Kilis? == | |||
| type = notice | |||
| image = ] | |||
Why is Hawar Kilis black? ] (]) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| text = '''OVERVIEW MODULE MERGED INTO DETAILED MODULE''' | |||
: ] Read this discussion. All it indicated at the bottom of the discussion. ] (]) 20:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
<br>{{color|red|Module:Syrian Civil War overview map WAS MERGED INTO Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. PLEASE ONLY EDIT DETAILED MODULE}} | |||
}} | |||
:: Excuse me, this was my mistake. I read only the news about the car bomb today, to find, that the town on the map was already with ISIS, what seemed to be strange... ] (]) 22:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:2. -Stop using for icons the codes such as m.opp, etc... because they are outdated and somewhat misleading. Also, for some cases, they just don't give you a correct icon. We will just go back to using the picture icon directly in the code (such as "Location dot lime.svg"). So what you see is what you get. | |||
::Special thanks to ] who started this process... ]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
No matter what were the disagreements about Hawar Kilis. Now it seems that ISIS not only took this town, but also Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan, Kafr Shush and Ikidah. According to social medias (relaying on Amaq). Al-Jazeera and opposition are confirming that ISIS took control of towns on the turkish border. SOHR spokes about ISIS taking control of the "area" of Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez (to the west), without naming specific towns taken by ISIS ] (]) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:3. -Bring back border crossings on the Irak border from the Irak/Syria module back to here. A border crossing might not have the same color on both sides of the frontier. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:SOHR said that rebels retake 3 villages (Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul) but 3 villages still ISIS-held. ] (]) 09:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
Now, Al Masdar says Hawar Killis is under IS control, but I wonder whether they are using old information and today's SOHR article is more up to date. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-flee-across-turkish-border-isis-snatches-villages-map-update/ What do you guys think of this? Is it more likely to be IS controlled or opposition controlled, based on the evidence? ] (]) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: Right now IS is not claiming to hold it, so keep it FSA till they say yeah they lost it. But it is a fluid situation at the moment so lets hold off changes for today till we get more concrete information and the offensives peter out. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
: ] Today morning opp. sources said ISIS take Hawar Killis and ISIS source Amaq claimed that they captured Hawar Killis but later SOHR said that rebels retake Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul. ] (]) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Mysterious light blue oil== | |||
: Even Amaq just confirmed that Hawar Kilis and Ikadah were abandoned by ISIS after they have tooked both towns before. It confirms on the other hand that the towns of Kafr Ghan, Baraghidah, Kafr Shush and - that it new for us - Yeni Yaban (southwest of Dudiyan) were taken and still with ISIS. ] (]) 18:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
We have on the map (around Palmyra) a dozen ] ''light blue'' oil icons. What are these? ]<sup>]</sup> 16:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] You can give link on ISIS source which said that ISIS abandoned of the town Ikadah. And SOHR also earlier today said that rebels retakethe three villages but ISIS still hold three villages. plus opp. activist said that rebels retake Dalhah, Yahmul and Tall Hussayn, Ikdah, Hawar Killis, Harjalah and Jarez but the villages of Kafr Ghan, Baraghidah, Yan Yaban still ISSI-held. ] (]) 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Seems to be for RCA control since I don't think there's a teal color for oil/gas icons | |||
:: Of course: https://a3maqagency.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/تقدم-جديد-لمقاتلي-الدولة-الإسلامية-قر ] (]) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Which raises the question of what we do for RCA control. ] (]) 23:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::]] In the beginning of April (2 April) opp. source Qasioun News said that the village Murayghil is ISIS-held. But later someone put this village to rebels-held without source so that probably we need again marked this village as ISIS-held also village Yani Yaban north of Murayghil still ISIS-held. Also here source said that yesterday ISIS advanced North from village Al Tughali and captured Baraghidah,Kafr Ghan,Hawar Killis,Aykadah, Harjalah,Jariz and Yahmul. But rebels regained control of Aykadah, Hawar Killis, Yahmul and Jariz and Tall Ahmar, a few kilometers from Al Ra’i. ] (]) 07:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Oh ok thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: ] Reliable source said that villages Aykadah, Hawar Killis, Harjalah, Mazra Shahin and Tall al-Ahmar is rebels-held. ] (]) 10:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Fix some places in the template == | |||
== ], Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah == | |||
west of ] there are two towns in yellow, pretty sure Syrian Defense forces don't control anything in this area | |||
Please, please, admins, will You finally block ]. He just keeps doing crazy edits. Take . He used news about SAA taking a hill 20 km E of Qaryatan in order to prove that ], which is 17 km east(!!!) od Qaryatan must have been takne by SAA. To visual how crazy this edit was, please check . I don't think it makes any sense to try to talk to this guy, so I will go talk to admins. --] (]) 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
And there is a red dot between ] and ] in homs also need to be changed ] (]) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:13, 22 December 2024
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Control of cities during the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war at the Reference desk. |
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Module talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map redirect here. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Control of cities during the Syrian civil war, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rules for Editing the Map
1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Misplaced Pages for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Too many templates
It appears that this article would require restructuring or splitting, as it is has too many templates in use, starting to break some functionality. Please see Template_talk:Reflist#Not_expanding for more information on an example. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- @LightandDark2000: I noticed your edit summary when you removed the warning. I will try to explain more precisely here. The issue is that the allowed delay for server-side template expansion is being exceeded. At some point in the page, all templates stop working. See for instance the "Template:Reflist" at the bottom, where the footnote citations would normally display. Also note the page loading time, most of which is because of the server-side delay before the page is being sent to the browser (~10 seconds allowed cpu time). This also causes the article to automatically be included in the special category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Also, if you go into edit/preview mode, at the bottom under "Parser profiling data" can be seen the report. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that the server-loading issues has more to do with the amount of data/objects in the module itself, not in the templates used. For example, the sheer number of objects/locations in the Syrian Civil War module alone is probably what caused the Middle East conflicts detailed map module to crash in the first place. That issue is still unresolved, by the way. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
An Important Message for ALL Map Editors: Please Refrain from Adding Extra, Nonessential Villages
@EkoGraf, Tradedia, Paolowalter, Spesh531, Niele~enwiki, and Mehmedsons: Hi there. This is LightandDark2000. Today, I noticed a massive issue with some of the larger map modules that has the Syrian Civil War map integrated into them. The Middle East conflicts map had crashed nearly a year ago because too many items/locations have been added to this Syrian Civil War map. Today, the addition of even more villages caused the smaller Levant conflicts map to crash as well. I had to go back and delete a dozen or so villages in order to get that map working again; as for the larger Middle East map, a much larger reduction would be needed (which will require the efforts of multiple users to get it done), which I will not attempt at this time. So please, DO NOT ADD any extra insignificant villages or locations unless absolutely necessary, otherwise we will have more map modules breaking down. If people continue to add more items to this map casually, eventually, even the Syrian Civil War Map will crash as well. Instead, extra villages from inactive fronts or crowded areas need to be deleted/cleaned up. In the past, we've had a couple of diligent users who helped clean up and de-cluttered in active fronts once the fighting shifted away from an area, which kept this problem from ever happening before. However, this maintenance stopped over 1 year ago, and with the addition so many villages and localities since then, this map has become extremely cluttered and very burdensome on the Wikimedia Foundation's systems. Because of this, we have to maintain the map ourselves. So, to everyone who views or edits this map, please be very careful with your editing in the future. Thank you.
- The larger map modules seem to break down if the Syrian Civil War map exceeds a size of 756,000 bytes. As a result, I think that we need to reduce the map to at least 750,000 bytes, or even 700,000 bytes to be safer. To restore the Middle East Conflicts map, a reduction to 600,000 or 500,000 bytes will probably be needed, but I will wait for user input before attempting to restore the larger Middle East map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- For starters, the Afrin, Latakia, and East Aleppo (Deir Hayfer) areas need to be decluttered/cleaned up. Eventually, I will start by removing minor villages from the Afrin District, because it appears to be the single most crowded place on this map away from any active fronts, which also happens to be jammed with too many insignificant villages to make things worse. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- The larger map modules seem to break down if the Syrian Civil War map exceeds a size of 756,000 bytes. As a result, I think that we need to reduce the map to at least 750,000 bytes, or even 700,000 bytes to be safer. To restore the Middle East Conflicts map, a reduction to 600,000 or 500,000 bytes will probably be needed, but I will wait for user input before attempting to restore the larger Middle East map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Removing villages on the Syrian map is a good way to keep map size down. However, the easiest way to do this without removing settlement data is to remove mountains and hills that are far behind the frontlines. Many of the hills in Latakia province and west of Palmyra could be erased without taking away anything important from the map. Do you agree? TheNavigatrr (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Some mountain peaks and hills should be kept, but a large number of them can be removed. Unfortunately, the problem has grown so large that many of the villages have to go as well. The Afrin and Latakia areas could seriously use some cleanup, for starters. BTW, this discussion should go under the heading in the Syrian Civil War map's talk page, because this is such a big issue. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- The Afrin District should be reduced to the level that it was at about a year ago here. (Note: Please do not submit the changes in the preview link. Instead, enter in one of the map module's titles, such as Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, into the "Preview Title" bar and hit "Show preview".) LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Removing villages from map is considered vandalism. Most certainly in a now important conflict area as Afrin.
- If the it would be a problem for users that there are to many objects on the map, the module should be split in different modules for east, north, west and south Syria. Or by creating a seperate light weight and a detailed map. But certainly not by removing valuable data.
- The syrian detailled map should not consider problems resulting from the creation of a Middle East conflict map having to many objects.
- Someone can make a 'world conflict' map with all conflict data included from whole the world, but that's their responsibility. This should NOT result in reduction of the importand level of detail of the detailled 'one country'-maps.
--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- A better sollution would also be to place all villages larger then size 6 or 7 and all object smaller then size 5 or 6 into two separate modules.
- And let the Middle-East and multi-country conflict maps, include only the module with larger villages and towns.
- While one-country-maps shows the detailled module with smaller villages that also includes the module with larger villages and towns.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 Is not a good decision we can't just removed villages. We not have this problem earlier but if we begin remove villages be will broke the a real situation at the ground. I against such action, we need another decision. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- It will also be intelligent to remove some detailed map as qamishli or aleppo who are closed front or nearly totally red. I think that we should remove some of the villages situed in the large desertic spaces controlled by SDF in northern Syria and use a more extensively the icon rural presence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- LightandDark2000Niele~enwiki We can removed villages and checkpoints which present at our map and also accurately marked at such maps as Rif Aleppo2.svg, Rif Damashq.svg, Battle of Daraa City.svg and others. Here is an example:link Mehmedsons (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I also remove unused links. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree on the proposal of removing villages cluttering areas far behind the front lines. In addition to the areas alreasy mentioned, also north Raqqah and north Hasaka are presented in too detail. We can also remove yellow points on the detailed Raqqah map where it is already yellow. Probably Aleppo can just become a large red dot. Paolowalter (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
You can use 25% more points now
@LightandDark2000, EkoGraf, Tradedia, Paolowalter, Spesh531, Niele~enwiki, Mehmedsons, and TheNavigatrr: I just make an edit to Module:Location map to make it substantially more efficient. You can now use about 25% more points than you used to without exceeding the size limit. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back Jackmcbarn. We all appreciate your efforts over the years. Tradedia 19:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's still best to be as efficient as possible. But thanks. The changes should significantly ease the burden on the map. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Change color for HTS
@TheNavigatrr @Firestar464 Wouldn't be better use some sort of greenish/blue for HTS territory/control as the territory is actually mixed HTS & SNA control, or at least is not clear, yet. A lot of sources online such as liveuamap indeed uses some sort of green, and use white for the no man's land caused by SAA forces withrawing from the north-east, creating some sort of vacuum? Yacine Boussoufa (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a half-and-half icon for mixed control. I remember the Ukraine map used some shade of gray for uncontrolled territory, though I can't remember what shade it was and HTS already uses gray. Firestar464 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- We can do the same thing we did for the Israel/Palestine map, which is use two different shades of green:
- Lets make HTS lime green. Tradedia 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there are no objections, I will make HTS lime green. HTS is now the core of the opposition, so it makes sense for it to be in a shade of green. Also, both "green" groups are supported by Turkey. Tradedia 17:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Are Southern Operations Room local or opposition?
@Firestar464, in the south, cities like Daraa are controlled by the newly formed Southern Operations Room. The article describes this as "a Syrian rebel coalition consisting of various armed Druze tribes and Syrian opposition groups in southern Suwayda and Quneitra provinces." Should we consider them an opposition or a local group, or do they merit their own colour? —AlphaMikeOmega
(talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- They seem to be in opposition. Many also seem to be formerly reconciled rebels who rose back up, and Druze militias only seem to be in certain parts, like Suwayda. most of the others are under the new SOR who are former FSA River10000 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe they merit their own color at this point, now that they've been firmly established as a formal coalition. Sources didn't describe them as such when they seized their first towns. Firestar464 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think they are opposition. Tradedia 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
outdated
is someone going to update this to make it mine in line with current situation? Vangaurden (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Why so many red dots
There are many red dots that's implying that bashar controlling this cities while rebels entered many of this red dots like Al-Qusayr and Al-Qaryatayn and Latakia 2605:B100:D26:5CFA:8C0D:893B:A7CC:5D48 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024
This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to replace all the red dots (gov) to opposition (green) i already done that in the bigger towns but for the smaller one is protected.
The map.now.is misleading and it impley that al assad control so many towns in syria 2605:B100:D4C:816A:A0D2:A98:6F8E:20E4 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry but I had to revert all your edits. We cannot just make all the red be opp/green. If you look at the caption of the map, opp/green correspond to "Syrian Interim Government (SNA) and Turkish Armed Forces." However, most of the places that were red, have fallen to HTS and allies or Southern Operations Room. So we need to be careful when we get out of the red color to go to the correct color of the correct military group. Also, the caption is outdated and i will be writing a new one. I will be also making big changes to the structure of the template/module soon... Tradedia 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tradedia Thanks for replying i think for now we have to get rid of the red dots and then see who control what because for example if we look at Damascus it's in dark green colour which imply according to the caption that it's control by the turkish backed rebels while in reality the new prime minister of Syria is from hts and their leader al goulani and his army currently control Damascus
I have a suggestion that we simplify the map into only 4 groups. (Opposition which include all non turkish backed rebels - turkish backed rebels - sdf - Israel which control few towns in their latest invasion in south syria). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:D4C:816A:C8C3:F58E:DEAD:8B8F (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, i don't see why we would do this, when the Institute for the Study of War (Critical Threats Team from Interactive Map: Assessed Control of Terrain in Syria. 2024, December. ArcGIS StoryMaps; Esri. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/1933cb1d315f4db3a4f4dcc5ef40753a see their picture map that i put here) is able to give the different groups of rebels, and we are supposedly a "detailed" map. By the way, you are correct that Damascus does not have the right color on our map. Tradedia 21:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Israel desperately needs to be added to the map given their incursion into southern Syria
- Unfortunately, the traditional blue dot for Israeli control is already occupied by the southern front rebels which creates some issue with marking who controls what and may lead to a misleading picture as far as icons goes (like say, Israel is cyan color while south front rebels are blue, thus implying that south front rebels are aligned with Israel).
- My proposal for a solution is to change up a few faction colors in order to add Israel while painting an overall clear picture of who's aligned with who and who's against who
- - SNA would be dark green dots (Location dot green)
- - HTS would be standard green dots (Dot green 0d0)
- - South Front would be lime green (Location dot lime)
- - Israel would be blue
- And obviously, we need to deal with all the red dots lying around the country. I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that most of the red dots are HTS-controlled, though it will be tricky for the Aleppo countryside - I think SNA controls the former YPG areas and everything east of the Aleppo airport, while HTS controls everything else. So basically aligned with what the ISW map shows as far as the Aleppo countryside goes. TheMapLurker (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- There might be a technical problem with your proposal. The dark green dot (Location dot green) and the standard green dot (Dot green 0d0) share the same icons (other than the dot). For example, they both have the same icons for Besieged one side , enemy pressure) , Military base , Strategic hill , Oil/gas , Airport/Air base (plane) , Helicopter base , etc...
- So if you confirm that this is indeed a problem, then i can propose 2 solutions:
- -We go back to grey for HTS&allies and we make the southern front rebels lime.
- -We create new SVG picture icons (i don't know how to do it). Tradedia 19:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aye it is indeed a problem. I've made icons for contested animated gifs, but I've no clue how to recolor the other icons, much less make them SVG files as well. If I knew how to do it, I'd do it.
- Otherwise, we could go forward two ways:
- - The consistent solution: Grey for HTS, but SNA is dark green and South Front is standard green (dot green 0d0) - given that all other icons for SNA control save for the settlements are already dark green like the hills and bases
- - The lazy solution: Grey for HTS, SNA stays the same, and South Front is lime green
- I don't really care either way, but I figured it'd be fair to propose both solutions. TheMapLurker (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, the icons for SNA are dark green (except for dot green 0d0). So to be consistent, we can use for SNA, dark green (Location dot green). In this case, we use lime for South Front. We cannot use standard green (dot green 0d0) for South Front because we don't have icons corresponding to standard green (dot green 0d0). I checked that we have contested dark green/yellow and stable dark green/yellow, which could come handy (also we have contested dark green/black, contested dark green/lime and contested dark green/blue). And HTS in grey.
- Concerning all the red dots lying around the country, I agree with you. Tradedia 04:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dark Green for SNA, Grey for HTS, Lime for South Front
- Aye, we're in agreement then
- If needed, I'll pitch in on the map sometime later this week. I can't promise 100% accuracy in the fine details, but it'll be better than seeing all that red lying around.
- A small warning for any editors who wish to pitch in and add in SDF control: "location dot yellow" isn't what's on the map, all that yellow you see is actually "Dot yellow ff4", which was created because "location dot yellow" is too hard to see on a white background. I brought this up because Maskaneh was marked with "location dot yellow", which I have since corrected. TheMapLurker (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will advance the work whenever i can... Tradedia 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have implemented the color changes, all we have to do is fine tune the details at least. I'll do the work whenever I can as well, I have a busy week ahead of me... TheMapLurker (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will advance the work whenever i can... Tradedia 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Big changes to the structure of the template/module
I plan on making big changes to the structure of the template/module. This include:
- -Merging "Module:Syrian Civil War overview map" into "Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map". The reason we split the old module into 2 modules no longer exists. It is simpler to just have everything back into one module.
- Y Merger complete.
OVERVIEW MODULE MERGED INTO DETAILED MODULE
Module:Syrian Civil War overview map WAS MERGED INTO Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. PLEASE ONLY EDIT DETAILED MODULE |
- 2. -Stop using for icons the codes such as m.opp, etc... because they are outdated and somewhat misleading. Also, for some cases, they just don't give you a correct icon. We will just go back to using the picture icon directly in the code (such as "Location dot lime.svg"). So what you see is what you get.
- Special thanks to User:Sumanuil who started this process... Tradedia 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3. -Bring back border crossings on the Irak border from the Irak/Syria module back to here. A border crossing might not have the same color on both sides of the frontier. Tradedia 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Mysterious light blue oil
We have on the map (around Palmyra) a dozen light blue oil icons. What are these? Tradedia 16:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be for RCA control since I don't think there's a teal color for oil/gas icons
- Which raises the question of what we do for RCA control. TheMapLurker (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh ok thanks. Tradedia 05:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Fix some places in the template
west of Palmyra there are two towns in yellow, pretty sure Syrian Defense forces don't control anything in this area And there is a red dot between Tiyas and Qasr al-Hayr al-Gharbi in homs also need to be changed 2605:B100:D21:1394:CD62:31A2:1559:C404 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- List-Class Syria articles
- Mid-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- List-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages