Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the following pages redirect here: |
![]() | Rules for editing the map
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 26 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The result of the discussion was Moved to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. |
![]() | On 30 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Control of localities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The result of the discussion was Moved to Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Paraskoviivka
To anyone who is here, I’m pretty sure Paraskoviivka (Kurakove direction) has fallen. We have a geolocation of a Russian tank in the western part of it, the 79th Air Assault brigade themselves posted that they retreated from the village, and the Russian Mod confirmed the capture yesterday. Are any of you going to update this or are we waiting for Deepstate or ISW to confirm it? 73.145.137.48 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit behind. Will use a makeshift ref in the meantime. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
the 79th Air Assault brigade themselves posted that they retreated from the village
do you have a link? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- https:.//t.me/odshbr_79/3788 - source. For some odd reason, it won’t let me post links so remove the extra period after https. 73.145.137.48 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Though sadly the ISW doesn't reference it. I had adjusted the Paraskoviivka details column, but it seems there's still more work to be done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- https:.//t.me/odshbr_79/3788 - source. For some odd reason, it won’t let me post links so remove the extra period after https. 73.145.137.48 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Where are the scrollbars? – "overflow-x: auto" Considered Harmful
The recent-ish addition (by whatever mechanism) of ".noresize {overflow-x: auto;}" to this oversize map page is an incredibly bad idea, because (1) most users' viewports are going to be less tall than the height of this map, hence a horizontal scrollbar shown in-page is going to be invisible at first and hard to locate, and (2) the forced use of an in-page scrollbar restricts the visible part of the map to a subset of the Wikipedia page's width as opposed to the user's entire viewport. (Depending on the user's skin, there might be stuff shown on the side, and with overflow-x: auto, that now detracts—subtracts—from the x-width.) Finally, (3) the presence of a viewport-attached (i.e. browser) y-scrollbar but then an in-page x-scrollbar is just plain confusing.
I myself have previously added overflow-x: auto scrollbars to wide Wikipedia content where appropriate, but here all of these issues make such in-page scrollbars incredibly impractical.
It's also very concerning that this change was apparently not discussed anywhere but just made by a single user, and worse, it's incredibly difficult to even figure out where that change was made. The fact that it is entirely non-discoverable where the change was made—much less where it was discussed—is itself a problem. I myself have not been able to find that out. All I have done on my end is, I have overridden this nonsense client-side with a .noresize {overflow-x: unset;} browser CSS (Stylish, etc.) rule. While I might be okay with that, others will not be. The recent-ish addition of "overflow-x: auto" is to be considered harmful and should be reverted, or at the very least discussed. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: Note that the above pertains to Template:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_map and Template:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_relief_map. It turns out both Template_talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_map and Template_talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War_detailed_relief_map redirect here, which—in case anyone was confused by this—might also not have been such a good idea after all.
- Thank you for raising this. I was wondering why I can no longer scroll horizontally. Nurg (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also baffled as to where/how and why that change was made. This should probably also be raised at WP:VPT because I think we all got no clue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- It very much sounds related, but the next problem is, that is an archived discussion. It is yet another example of meta-content getting archived prematurely, which is a great way to kneecap hints of dissent on Wikipedia. I don't even know that there is a good process to unarchive prematurely archived content and duly sanction premature archivers. And I don't know how to properly continue the conversation save for contacting all participants individually, and even doing that would not really attract more eyeballs and scrutiny. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- We also have to ask ourselves if it's better to try to fix the base modules to get rid of that CSS. The premise for the core CSS change seems good and it hints that there is a way to opt out of responsive images. I'll try to find out how. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It very much sounds related, but the next problem is, that is an archived discussion. It is yet another example of meta-content getting archived prematurely, which is a great way to kneecap hints of dissent on Wikipedia. I don't even know that there is a good process to unarchive prematurely archived content and duly sanction premature archivers. And I don't know how to properly continue the conversation save for contacting all participants individually, and even doing that would not really attract more eyeballs and scrutiny. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, the fix seems pretty simple. We just got to change the way noresize
is applied at Module:Location map/sandbox. But how should it be done? Should it omit the class when the width is greater than a certain value or should it be manually opted out by a new parameter?
This discussion is relevant to all big map templates. @Firestar464, Socialwave597, SDUpdates32349, Tornadoboy7, Borysk5, AntonSamuel, Tradedia, and Lukt64: pinging some editors from other maps. Ping others if they should also know about this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- If this were an election, I would very much vote to sack (undo) the core CSS change, but to still provide a facility to apply that functionality selectively, maybe just via Template:Overflow. That, IMNSHO, is much better than hoping some further even clevererer logic will automagically mercifully unapply the forced CSS change past some size cut-off (there might be other reasons for people to want to unapply it), or praying other users will be willing and able to consistently do the additional homework of appropriately unapplying this CSS that apparently was just rammed down everybody's throats everywhere. I vote to not ram that CSS down anybody's throat, and instead just let those who actually want (and see a need for) something like overflow-x: auto in their lives (or articles) affirmatively consent to it. There is such a thing as doing too much or being too clever and controlling. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Oh I know, it feels so magical and dev-ilishly victorious to go all the way and have one's source output do it all, but it's much better to control oneself and leave things at a principled KISS. I shouldn't have to do any extra work to get your CSS sauce off the face of my article. Let those who want it opt for it. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that Module:Location map itself already applies the
noresize
class by default on line 180. There must have been a reason for it. We were just lucky that until now that only affected the Minerva skin. @TheDJ and Pppery: perhaps input from some of the maintainers or authors of the module would be helpful. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- I am not a maintainer of Module:Location map. I monitor edit requests and have made a few edits to it as a result. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- 👍 Alright. Sorry for any inconvenience. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- What is the exact question? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- When you included
noresize
in the module, did you mean for it to be applied only on mobile or on any device and skin viewing the module template? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)- Any skin and device. This thing breaks out of the viewport, and breaking out of the viewport is disruptive and messes with the expectation of skins. Especially Minerva (Mobile), Timeless, Vector 2022 etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hum, I see. By the way, in
This thing
, are you indeed referring to the big Ukraine detailed map? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) - @TheDJ: Could you explain exactly what you mean by "This thing breaks out of the viewport" and how the noresize thing relates to the overflow-x: auto change? Because I can't figure out if I should agree or disagree with you, because one way to read your replies is as you saying you're in favour of forcing the overflow-x: auto change everywhere, but I'm not sure if that's what you really meant. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hum, I see. By the way, in
- Any skin and device. This thing breaks out of the viewport, and breaking out of the viewport is disruptive and messes with the expectation of skins. Especially Minerva (Mobile), Timeless, Vector 2022 etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- When you included
- I am not a maintainer of Module:Location map. I monitor edit requests and have made a few edits to it as a result. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that Module:Location map itself already applies the
- Well, I've fixed the issue for this map. However, if other people and maps also want this fix, we should discuss here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing. Nurg (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexiscoutinho:I second Nurg's thanks, however I remain of the opinion that overflow-x: auto should not be pushed on everbody; it should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Unrelated, except in spirit: Today another CSS change appears to have been pushed on everybody: The "highlighter" colours used in the diff view have changed. The blue now is darker and that makes blue-highlit black text somewhat harder to read. It depends on the user's device's colour calibration I suppose, but here again, this was just pushed on everybody, even in older skins. That feels really bad. Any suggestions as to where or to whom one might kvetch regarding that? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- There is a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Heads-up:_Diff_colour if it helps. Nurg (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
it should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Well, it always was kinda opt-in. It's just that the Location map template was opting-in by default for some time. Maybe this discussion could be extended in that module's talk page (which ain't great as that page is kinda dead), or be elevated to some MOS or VPT discussion. If people were in favor, I was thinking about creating a submodule/subclass of the Location map/multi template specifically for War map templates. This new template would default to CompactLabels true and noresize false for example. I.e. Syria war, Sudan war, etc would be similar to this map's formatting. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexiscoutinho:I second Nurg's thanks, however I remain of the opinion that overflow-x: auto should not be pushed on everbody; it should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
- Thanks for fixing. Nurg (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Bilohorivka
Dear Alexcoutinho, if my mind dont fail this is the second time you revert the Russian and Ukrainian report of fighting in Bilohorivka. I cite Reuters, but what most amase me is why you revert my adition and replace Reuters from May 2024 with a Telegram update of Rybar from January 2024. I didnt want to revert you because I have behold your dedicated work in UKRRUS articles. A further explanation is needed. Mr.User200 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking for clarification here. I also appreciate your work in RUS/UKR articles. The issue is that the Reuters article talks about the MoD capture claim of Bilohorivka and Ukrainian statements of fighting near/around the village. None of these imply fighting within the village, which would qualify for the "contested" status. The Ukrainian statements are inline with the current assessment of "pressure" which started several months ago. The MoD statement would be inline with a capture claim statement. The capture claim info could have been written in the table at the time of the claim, while it still was fresh. However, soon after, multiple Russian military observers denied the MoD statement as premature. This is shown in the ISW reports at the time. While any military observer isn't a reliable source, a priori, in isolation, the Russian MoD isn't reliable either as it, from time to time, makes these flops. And finally, I've been following a standard of not mentioning disputed claims by the Russians themselves. If even they can't agree on it, then the claim is definitely unreliable or even untrue. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Krynky
The language of the ISW's recent reports implies that they believe Russia has retaken all of Krynky, as when they refer to fighting in the area, they say that its occurring near Krynky, but not inside of it. However, their map still shows Ukraine in control of one street in the southwestern part of the settlement. Should we give the reports more weight in this situation, meaning that Russia has fully recaptured Krynky, or give the map more weight, meaning that Ukraine continues to contest is on a small scale? Physeters✉ 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't interpret that they considered Krynky Russian controlled. It seems they're distancing themselves from an assertion. From time to time they aggregate Russian sources that clearly state the Ukrainians still hold some positions there. I think the Ukrainian sources also deny the loss, though I don't remember exactly. I think the real situation is too unknown. Perhaps the entry could be commented out to reflect this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input! The reason I ask is because someone has requested that I mark Krynky as Russian controlled on the SVG Ukraine map, and I am unsure on how to handle the situation. Physeters✉ 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see 👍. Though even if we considered it contested, it's much more like a contested gray zone or even shared control. It's hard to piece out what's exactly happening there. Anyways, from what I've read and seen, it would seem premature to return it to red. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll leave it as contested unless something changes. Physeters✉ 05:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see 👍. Though even if we considered it contested, it's much more like a contested gray zone or even shared control. It's hard to piece out what's exactly happening there. Anyways, from what I've read and seen, it would seem premature to return it to red. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input! The reason I ask is because someone has requested that I mark Krynky as Russian controlled on the SVG Ukraine map, and I am unsure on how to handle the situation. Physeters✉ 17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Rozdolivka
ISW has FINALLY updated Rozdolivka as Russian controlled, please update when you can. 73.145.137.48 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Cross border incursion into Kursk
We all know about the hype that surrounded similar cross border raids into Russia in Belgorod and Kursk oblasts. What makes this new one different is it wasn't done by pro-Ukraine Russian militants, but done entirely by the regular Ukrainian army, so I think the villages captured should be added.
Rybar is a good source for mapping out the villages as a start, as it is a pro-Russian source reporting on loss of territory within Russia. TheMapLurker (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Telegram usually shouldn't be used even if the reports on it are by a "reliable source"; I think we should either stick with the ISW or maybe use some other map (maybe Deepstate if they start visualizing the advances or SuriyakMaps, though they've been determined in the past to be a bit iffy) instead of resorting to what some bloke on Telegram thinks, even if he is a "pro-Russian source reporting on his territorial losses", which doesn't seem much better than a pro-Russian source reporting on their own advances as it's biased either way. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was just suggesting that as a starting point
- What if we were to use the maps in this article https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:August_2024_Kursk_Oblast_incursion.svg which cites ISW as the source for mapping out the territorial control in Kursk? TheMapLurker (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's time to add a section for Kursk Oblast. I've now seen western sources report on control of towns in the oblast, such as Sudzha, and it's becoming clear that Ukraine controls a fairly significant part of the region, at least for the time being. Physeters✉ 03:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Physeters I started a table. I've found however that once the population of a settlement drops below 6,000 (Sudzha), reporting on who definitively controls a settlement becomes scarce. It might be hard to find exact control info on settlement control that is not just repeating what one side claims has happened. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Miasozharivka
Miasozharivka (Luhansk) should be 'contested', as the Russians clearly have some kind of a foothold within the village (if it's not fully captured, as they say so). One Hop2482 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Dark mode problems
The map at Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map is pretty hard to read in dark mode. In light mode, the names of cities are in blue on a yellow or light gray background. In dark mode, the text is blue (though it looks grey, but each city name has a black-background box around it, which results in low-contrast text. The country background colors of yellow and light grey are the same, which makes the black boxes jarring. The blue and red dots showing city control are also darker shades, which makes them harder to distinguish. This page could just be hard-wired to ignore dark mode, or there are suggestions at mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis. -- Beland (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)