Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

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)

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^talk 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:

• Palestinian Authority
• Hamas

Lets make HTS lime green. Tradedia^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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

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^talk 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War map

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^talk 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)

Big changes to the structure of the template/module

I plan on making big changes to the structure of the template/module. This include:

1. -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.

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^talk 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^talk 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)