Module talk:Turkish insurgency detailed map

Map standards

Pbfreespace3 You've done a great job by creating this map but adding Syria to it is a step too far, the map doesn't support it and this is the Turkish Insurgency map and not the Middle east insurgency map (although there is a seperate module which includes all maps from the middle east into one map. [1]) So i think we should stick to turkish locations.

Also we should set a standard for village sizes like i did with the Libyan civil war map Module:Libyan_Civil_War_detailed_map and i think we should add all big cities / important airbases first. How do you think about that? Spenk01 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Spenk01 Here's what I could do. I could drop all villages in Syria except those important ones on the border. For example these: Kobani, Serekaniye, Qamishli, etc. Actually no, I'll only do that if YPG and Turkey come into direct conflict. Whatever. I have a standard for village sizes in my brain. It should roughly correspond to actual geographical size in my opinion, as this is the most encyclopedic method of depicting villages. I use Google Earth and superimpose the image on top of the satellite map. I will remove Syrian villages now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i have a problem with the utilized colors (red and yellow). Considering that this conflict further evolves, we cannot use red for Turkey, because red is already utilized for Assad government in neighbouring Syria, which is practically in limited conflict with Turkey. Turkey is actually more supportive of the Islamist Syrian rebels, who have a green color. Therefore Turkey, should perhaps be dark green. Furthermore, PKK needs a different yellow shade, to distinguish it from PYD areas in Syria and from Iraqi Kurdistan.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 thanks for your efforts on the coloring issue.GreyShark (dibra) 10:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Silvan and reliable sources

So the problem is that Turkish sources do not report about Kurdish cities/towns/villages being 'liberated', so it is difficult to verify reliable sources, but I guess HDP (people) is one of those reliable sources. HDP parliamentarian Ziya Pir has announced that Turkish forces have retreated from Silvan. [2] --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source itself [3]. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you i adjusted it, please stick around and help us keep up this map. Spenk01 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an english article about the attack on Silvan/Farqîn [4] --Ahmetyal (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding cities

I'm going to add Kurdish cities with greater than 7,000 population and Turkish cities with something like 500,000. Guess I'll have to figure out how to use this module thing. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not all that hard. I fact, I think you already know how to use it, since you've added towns. Just ask me if you need help. Please try to adjust city sizes based on actual geographical size. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Crap. I thought it was based on population size. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kurdish-held"

How do we define it? Just the PKK or also the DBP? on DBP held cities --Monochrome_Monitor 02:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) I'm assuming it's just kurdish held places that have declared autonomy from Turkey, no? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Cause a bunch of towns are declaring self-governance. I'll try to find them. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What to do about the big cities

Istanbul's Gazi neighborhood reportedly declared autonomy, but Istanbul is WAY too big to use a split-color icon. So we'll need to make maps like for major cities in Syria. I also think it would be worthwhile doing this for Batman and Van. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Pbfreespace3 I'm considering uploading a submap. What tools are used for this? Wikimapia? --Monochrome_Monitor 13:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like Wikimapia covered in GIMP. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, We can do a map, but its entirely up to you to make it. The far easier and better solution is to add a small dot *inside* Istanbul to indicate Gezi. Maybe yellow or some other color to indicate leftists. I will do so shortly. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually going to need a source for the declaration of autonomy. I can't find any, and we're not going to mark it as contested until a source is provided. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source [http://kurdishquestion.com/index.php/kurdistan/north-kurdistan/kurds-decide-on-self-government-in-the-face-of-war.html "Istanbul's Gazi neighborhood". --Monochrome_Monitor 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll need to make a map. There are entire districts of provinces which have declared autonomy, it's way more specific.

Ugh, Wikimapia doesn't have the districts of Turkey so I'll have to find an image or Gimp it. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul split in 3 parts isnt the best solution for this problem. I guess making a map for Istanbul (like with damascus) would be worth it even though i have no idea how a map like this is made, i would do it if i knew how.Spenk01 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And Other Thing

I feel like this title isn't quite fitting. Maybe it will be later, but none of the Kurdish places are really "insurgencies", which implies A: lack of legitimacy and often B: violence. They peacefully declared autonomy. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, I am the one who called it the Turkish insurgency detailed map. The reason why I did this is because the PKK is generally recognized as an insurgency. I think "civil war" would be a little too much, so insurgency is better, since it is only located in about one third or one fourth of the country. While different groups recognize the PKK differently, and some districts have declared regional autonomy, I still think insurgency is the best name choice. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sur district

How exactly should I put this on the map (the dot overlaps with Sur city)? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Crap I'm an idiot. It's not the whole sur district, just the city. Weird ambiguous wording. I guess the city is a district of the bigger city rather than the district of the province. What a waste of GIMP. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC) It's so freakin hard to tell when they mean the province or the city, cause the province is often named after the city. In the case of Diyabakir Sur is both a district of diyabakir province and a district of diyabakir city. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Color Sheme

I feel like we usually use reddish colors for government. Green seems too Syrian Rebel. Maybe mauve? --Monochrome_Monitor 04:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations are more important than declaring 'red is for govermnent'. With your argument we should put kurds on green too because they are eventually rebels right? Besides It's also easier to see who supports who if you combine all maps: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Syrian,_Iraqi_and_Lebanon_Conflicts_detailed_map Great work on the map though! Spenk01 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

News

Apparently declaring autonomy is a crime. [5]

I can't get the damn template to update, but here's an awesome map. It's in french but fairly easy to understand through cognates. It shows active fighting and places that have declared autonomy. Both should be on this map-pkk/HGP controlled and kurdish autonomous.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Update

I'm going to focus on North Kurdistan (putting all the districts on, and all the populated towns listed on wikipedia) with a few exceptions—the PKK targets oil pipelines for sabotage, and they do it quite a bit. We should really have a map of natural gas/oil pipelines on here. And if anyone finds it, it would be nice to put the PKK's mountain bases (rural settlements) on here too. --Monochrome_Monitor!~

Respective wikipedia page

Is there a wikipedia page that corresponds to this? A conflict is definitely underway. Over 70 Turkish security personnel have been killed. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Syria

Apparently Syria used to be a part of this module but was removed. Why? The PKK has a presence in Syria and showing Syria gives more regional context. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The map is supposed to show the conflict relevant to Turkey, and not Syria.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Iraq should be included definitely, considering the PKK has a presence there which has been targeted by Turkish airstrikes. Regardless, care to explain your recent vandalism? --Monochrome_Monitor 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you that on English Wikipedia Vandalism has a very specific meaning. POV pushing or acting out of own biases would not be an example of that. Misunderstanding this has led to several users believing they have a 1RR exception when they haven't and getting blocks. Banak (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think deleting every dot of Kurdish control counts as vandalism. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But I may be wrong. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome What vandalism are you talking about?Prohibited Area (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

İrrevelant

There is no such "liberated zones" in Turkey right now. Only some clashes with police at some points,and attacks at outskits. İn cities shown as "held by Pkk" still Turkish flag waves and Turkish police, soldiers present. Those declarations of autonomy are only nominal, they are not really helding cities. Sources of this map aren't reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.107.106 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 October 2015 UTC

From the capital I over irrelevant I presume you're Turkish, yes? :) You're right in some regards. Declaring autonomy is different than full control. However, in many of the places Kurds do have de facto control, enough to prevent Turkish security forces from entering. The conflict is still evolving, and right now an "insurgency" is not the best word for it. But it's certainly significant to have a map of places where Kurds have declared/exercise autonomy. Perhaps we could distinguish on the map between the two? What this map should include is the locations of clashes/turkish airstrikes/ PKK bases/ destroyed oil pipelines etc, as all are relevant to the conflict. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

To do

Unfortunately this page's creator was banned indefinitely, but I'm hoping recent increased coverage may translate to more contributors. Anyway, here's what should be on the template, in loose order of general priority.

• districts in kurdish areas of turkey, mostly done
• military bases, naval bases, air bases, first in kurdish areas
• PKK strongholds ("rural areas"), I have no idea how to get the coordinates but they managed to do it for Syria
• strategic hills! important considering terrain/mountain warfare
• economic/politcal targets like oil pipelines (and dams), considering the PKK's affinity for sabotage.
• every populated place noted in "list of populated places in ___ province", obviously in kurdish areas.
• major industrial complexes

In fact, every country should have one of these, not just those in war time --Monochrome_Monitor 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the PKK even control any areas, they have a presence in some cities however whenever they declare control the Turks just place the area under curfew and flush them out? Most of the cities on the map that are shown as Kurdish-held in fact are firmly held by Turkey such as Dersim, Nusaybin etc. I think we should only show a locations as PKK held if a source can specifically show that PKK holds unilateral control over the location and that the state is not present. Otherwise these locations should be indicated by mixed control or by conflicting control.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

But it's not just the PKK, it's Kurds. Kurds can have de facto control by being the majority declaring autonomy even without the PKK, in fact most districts who declared autonomy were that other

Kurdish party that won 10% in the polls a while ago. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand

This was never supposed to be a kurdish propaganda map. It was supposed to reflect places that have declared autonomy and places controlled by the PKK. Not places where there is intermittent clashing. I wish there were a way to reflect this somehow in the title or distinguish between pkk/military autonomy and legal/administrative autonomy on the template. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I was worried about this becoming anti-kurdish propaganda with the vandalism but any sort of npov violation is bad. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want this premature insurgence map to turn into a brazen Kurdish nationalist propaganda, here are a couple of things you can do:

1. The "Kurds" are an ethnic group, not a political faction. The conflict in question here is between the Turkish security forces (military and police) and the PKK.

2. PKK does not even claim to be in control of any district (ilçe in Turkish), never mind actually controlling it. So there mustn't be any yellow dots in the map.

3. PKK declared some sort of autonomy, or self-government (özyönetim in Turkish per their own terminology) in certain districts. These are the urban locations where the Turkish security forces and PKK clash. These can be labeled as "contested" in the map until the clashes end.

In short, the map should be full of "government-controlled" dots, except for "contested" districts I mentioned. No PKK dots, no "stable mixed-controlled" dots, no truce dots. --Mttll (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not true. The "Kurds" are an political faction and factor in middle east. Look at the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars.

Conflicts here is between the Turkish state and the Kurds. Also PKK, HPG, KCK, YDG-H, YPS are all Kurdish organizations. Generally conflicts is known as between Turkey and Kurds in World. Bruskom ^{talk to me} 09:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Look up "Kurd" in any English dictionary and you will see the word describes an ethnic group, not a political faction. As for PKK, HPG etc., they are all affiliated organizations, just as the Turkish land forces, the Turkish special forces, the Turkish gendarmerie and the Turkish police are all organs of the Turkish state. --Mttll (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: In this issue Mttll is right. Labelling one side as "Kurds" and the other as "Government" aint fair or balanced. What would be logic is either called them "Kurds" & "Turks" or "Government" & "PKK/YPS, etc...".--HCPUNXKID 14:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

City icons

Why city icons is so large ? Can we change the size of cities as small icon? Bruskom ^{talk to me} 08:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean districts? Ideally the size should be a reflection of population and area. For places like Ankara I simply looked at its boundary on openstreetmap and replicated its size from an aerial view. For most other places I used population. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Turkey location map.svg

Hello, Who can make a Turkey location map for Turkish Insurgency ? Like Syria location map. But this does not seem to map rivers in Turkey. Anyone interested in creating a location map for the Turkish insurgency in Turkey? Personally I do not know how to create such a location map and hence I am asking if any other editors would be happy to create one? Who can add to this rivers map? for example, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. And rivers in neighboring countries. For example, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia, Russia, Bulgaria and Greece. The background color of the provinces on the map should be a little darker, a little white color .. .. And the borders of the provinces should be slightly thicker than black. Bruskom ^{talk to me} 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone made a version of the map pretty much exactly like that, but it got reverted because it broke templates. What I'll do is upload it as a different file. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Now how the f*ck do I download an SVG file? --Monochrome_Monitor 04:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Have no fear, I figured it out. I downloaded that guy's ("The Emmir")'s map and I'm editing it a teeny bit, just taking out rivers in countries bordering turkey that don't run into turkey because they are kind of distracting. I'll screenshot it when I think it's good and upload it on some generic image sharing site so you can tell me what you think. Really right now the question is how many rivers should be on it. @Bruskom: --Monochrome_Monitor 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. Generally familiar and most big rivers should be add to map. Only the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. And lakes and rivers in neighboring countries. The colors of the provinces should be corrected. It is must be the same as the Syria location map. Bruskom ^{talk to me} 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

To update: I've transferred rivers from iraq and syria, now working on iran. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I give up. I can't get my version to scale and position precisely like the current one, so if i upload it as a new version it will be off. If you like I can send you the results, but this is really way above my line of duty. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

This map needs improving alot. Pro-PKK forces control only parts of districts in Diyarbakir, Hakkari and Cizre where fighting is ongoing so only those areas should be represented as contested areas and there should be no PKK/"Kurdish" controlled areas (especially in Istanbul) because even though they declared autonomy the people who did have mostly been arrested (sources: [6] [7] [Three mayors in Diyarbakir arrested for autonomy declarations%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09]). Also since this is a map of the Turkish Insurgency there should be information on ISIS forces and Maoists. --FPSTurkey (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't really been paying attention to colors because my primary focus has been getting shit on the map in the first place. I should probably get back to that by the way. Anyway, I think you're right about some points. Please link any sources you think are relevant. Also, I have no idea where ISIS is in Turkey. Sources for that would be appreciated as well. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IS and Maoists hold no territory in Turkey, not even rural areas. They have a presence, but not one you could mark in a specific area, because that indicates control. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the other areas 'held' by the Kurds, they are either places that have declared autonomy and not seen crackdowns from the Turkish government since then, or places where the PKK has launched attacks since and forced curfews to be put into place. When the curfews are lifted, these places are no longer marked as contested. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Cizre

100% Turkish victory!

http://www.trtturk.com/haber/cizrede-operasyonlar-basariyla-sona-erdi-175665.html

Turkish media. Can we trust? A simple Wikipedian ^{(said and did)} 05:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can trust. Tekin 12:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Turkey doesn't have a free press, but most countries don't. It wouldn't lie about this sort of thing, since they could easily be proven wrong. It's reliable in this case. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Omeristan - no more POV pushing and vandalism

1. Repeated, unsourced changes, all from contested or Kurdish autonomy/indepence-supporting-held to Turkish government held. 2. Changing the name of the map from 'Turkish insurgency' to 'Kurdish terrorism'. 3. Not even bothering to talk to editors who have problems with your edits.

These are the problems we face. You need to sort them out.

1. You may want the Turkish government to win, but here in wikipedia, we value accuracy and neutrality above POV pushing. We tell things like they are, not like we want them to be - otherwise, IS would not control anything on our maps, and neither would Al Qaeda. Stop making unsourced changes, even if they make your preferred side look stronger.

2. An insurgency is different from terrorism. Terrorism may be a tactic used in an insurgency, but this map is not for terrorism - it's for the insurgency itself. There is an insurgency going on, where militants from various Kurdish indepenence/autonomy-supporting groups are trying to take control of areas. This is what we are mapping here - not terrorist activities. Therefore, the appropriate name of the map is 'Turkish insurgency' (because it is an insurgency in Turkey), not 'Kurdish terrorism' (because we are not mapping terrorist activity, and we are certainly not associating the activities of the PKK with an entire race).

3. This is called an edit war, and it breaks the rules of wikipedia. If you and another editor consistently disagree over something, discuss it in the talk page - this page, in fact. This is the best way to do things, rather than changing the map over and over and giving our readers and viewers an inaccurate and rapidly changing picture of events.

Please sort these issues out, Omeristan. Thank you for your time. PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

He broke a lot of links and deleted over a thousand characters of text too. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) @PutItOnAMap:

Did we get them all back? PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted to the last edit I assumed to be constructive (too many new edits making little silly changes, couldn't look through them all), which happened to be yours. :D So, yeah. I'm not sure if there's anything decent since that I should have kept, but looking at the dif between this and that I think the answer is "no". --Monochrome_Monitor 12:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Using 'Kurds' as a label - I oppose this.

As we know, this insurgency is between the Turkish government and a number of Kurdish autonomy/independence-supporting groups operating in southeast Turkey. 'Kurds' is, in my opinion, not a correct term to use, as it implies that Kurds in general (and being Kurdish is just an ethnicity and perhaps a cultural background) are waging an insurgency, rather than specific armed groups.

I propose we change the label 'Kurds' on this map to 'Kurdish groups', 'Kurdish independence groups', 'Kurdish nationalists' or 'Kurdish autonomy/independence-supporting groups'. Something else along those lines might work, too: however, I think it's wrong to label armed groups as 'Kurds'. What are your thoughts on this? PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There is really just one group here and it's called PKK. Anything else one might come up with are just subdivision of the PKK. --Mttll (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Erzurum

The districts of Hınıs, Karaçoban, Karayazı and Tekman in the province of Erzurum were/are/have always been under the complete control of the Turkish government. --Mttll (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Gazi Mahallesi in Istanbul...

...is under the control of the Turkish government. The illegal far-left DHKP-C is active there, but then they are not an organization that can be put under the label Kurds. This module resembles an alternate world roleplay thing. --Mttll (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I just put it on the map because I saw a website that said it declared autonomy. Feel free to make it green, but please don't delete it. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This map is obviously outdated. My work on it has almost all been in adding stuff to it, not determining what color things should be. I was told by a user (who since got banned from this topic) that several districts in Erzurum had declared autonomy. I made em yellow, I'll switch them back. I greatly appreciate your reasoned and logical arguments as opposed to many assholes who just blank the entire page. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC) This article is in a transition phase. It began as a map which showed places that declared autonomy, but that stage is over since all of those people got arrested months ago. Now it should only show places where kurds are clashing with police, or no-go zones for turkish forces. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC) @Mttll:

Oh, so the original edits were not based on sources, then? It's ok to revert them in that case. If you were just told by someone else that they had declared autonomy, then revert. If they actually did and there has been no government crackdown, mark in lime, or there has been a curfew lifted since that time, then mark in yellow. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, they were based on "sources", meaning, tweets in kurdmanji. Which I don't speak, so I just trusted the guy. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh to clarify, the gazi thing was sourced. The erzurum things weren't adequately sourced. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC) The f*ck.... who changed the version of the map?!?!? It was supposed to be the alt version. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bulanık, Muş

The Bulanık district is still Turkish-held.

Sur, Diyarbakır

"Diyarbakır Governor: 98 percent of area in six neighborhoods have been cleared from [PKK] terrorists."

Soon very soon, Turkish victory. ;)

Is this map a joke or something?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Turkish_Insurgency.svg

All these towns you guys show in yellow suggests that these towns are under TOTAL control of the PKK and that is totally wrong information. Right now at this moment there are clashes happening in Varto, Derik, Semdinli, Silvan and literally every other yellow dot. There are either clashes in those towns or those towns are actually under Turkey's control.

But the weirdest part of this whole map is showing two neighborhoods in Istanbul to be under control of the PKK. Do you guys seriously believe to stuff like this? What's up with this anti-Turkey agenda pushing and this map?

The yellow originally meant places that declared autonomy. Those two neighborhoods in istanbul declared autonomy. But I agree now they should better reflect the military situation. We should have a consensus on it though. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well this map is constantly being used at this page so it should definitely reflect the current military situation. Even the title of the map is "Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map" not "Places in Turkey that declared autonomy". Also we're talking about couple of hundred militants declaring one sided autonomies in couple of different towns here. How is that any relevant? I agree on having a consensus though. Patetez (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't decide on the name. :P I mentioned the same concern further up this page, albeit clumsily. I didn't expect to be the only one working on this page, and for months I was, but this module recently got attention and now it's woefully outdated. I agree the map needs to reflect the military situation on the ground. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

If you don't like something in the module, please don't make huge sweeping changes or blank the page to get attention. This page is still in its infancy. Well, perhaps its childhood. Locations need to be added still and logistics worked out... Anyway, I agree much of it is out of date. If you want to make a boldish change please ping me or putinonamap or someone on the talk page about it. Not necessarily for approval, but so it doesn't get rolled back. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I have admittedly been neglecting developments on the ground since a few months ago, and focused instead on adding new districts and towns and whatnot. I can't speak turkish or kurdmanji so there are people better qualified to update the current military situation. Unfortunately its barely covered in English. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And who the hell keeps changing the map? --Monochrome_Monitor 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean making it the version without the rivers. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

What do you guys think I should add next? It's a bit overwhelming to put in locations for such a developed country like Turkey, as opposed to say Yemen, which has only like 10 important cities. I'm ignoring the non-Kurdish majority places unless they become relevant strategically. I think I did all the border crossings... @SMB99thx: did a lot (or all?) of the airbases... what's next? Adding all the cities which aren't district centers would be a pain in the ass and take a while. I don't think seaports are a priority... but oil pipelines definitely are. The PKK often sabotages pipelines from the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq. Also, rural areas. The PKK's main presence is in the mountains. But I have no clue about the coordinates. It would be great if someone did know or could find out. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Name of the module

Considering other precedents, the module name should correspond the name of the main article on PKK rebellion - PKK rebellion (2015–present). Furhtermore, the title "Turkish insurgency" may confuse readers and editors, since it could both refer to insurgency in Turkey or insurgency by Turks (which is incorrect). I herewith propose:

Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map -> Module:PKK rebellion detailed map

Your thoughts are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Should stick with "Turkish insurgency." I know that the PKK rebellion title is the title of the main article, but the Turkish insurgency title is more accurate, especially since there are occasional clashes with ISIL forces in Turkey. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm mixed. I see the merits of both. Turkish insurgency is less specific (more ambiguous) but more inclusive and thus better if you consider ISIS. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Clashes between ISIS and Turkey are only border clashes and it doesn't happen that often. So imo this map should focus on PKK vs Turkey for now. And the name of the map can be changed to "Insurgency in Turkey". Then people would look at the description of the map to get an idea about the opposing sides. Also @Monochrome Monitor: can you fix those outdated yellow dots? Atm there are clashes going on only at Sirnak's Idil district, Diyarbakir's Sur district and Mardin's Nusaybin district all the other yellow dots are supposed to be green. Patetez (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

When you say district you mean the district center, yes? Not a specific neighborhood or village or city in that district? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Patetez: Any links for that? I believe you but a source would be nice. From there we can just add or subtract clashes as they happen. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I introduced your updates but I suspect that specific villages are involved rather than the administrative center of districts. If so, I'll add the villages I guess. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Clashes are happening in couple of neighborhoods in those districts I mentioned, for example in Diyarbakir's Sur district the fighting is limited to an area that's only 150mx150m big (operations in Sur are expected end in a week), but I think instead of doing that just focusing on districts as a whole would be a lot easier. And you can see the latest developments here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/PKK_rebellion_(2015%E2%80%93present)#2016_Timeline Patetez (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the name should stay, because there is more militias who opposes Turkey (but they are lower in significance), they are Maoists, DKHP/C and ISIL. (I had not added ther icons yet, however this will be more better if i added this because they are giving more information) --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 09:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - so we have the following opinions:

PKK insurgency - Greyshark, Patetez

not sure - Monochrome Monitor

Turkish insurgency - LightandDark2000

More opinions would be welcome to make a consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 22:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This template should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous misrepresentation of policy, because this map displays the military situation during the PKK rebellion in Turkey right now, similar to the Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and the Template:Libyan Civil War detailed map. It also uses reliable sources to document changes; there's no reason to delete this map at all. --LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't delete this module. Because conflicts to be continued. Civil war may be even. Like Iraq and Syria. Yes , we know template has errors. But this can be corrected. Kordestani (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, it definitely shouldn't be deleted. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Istanbul

Please make the dot 3 times bigger. Istanbul is 3 times bigger then Ankara. Beshogur (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It originally used three dots positioned in a way to look like istanbul. I'll restore. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In reality it should have its own map. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Istanbul

Istanbul is waaaay bigger than that dot. The dot isn't a good shape in the first place, Instanbul is very long. Are there any um... ovals we can use? Yes, that sounds silly. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

İdil

100% Turkish victory! Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.kentgundemi.net/dunya/idil-deki-operasyonlar-tamamlandi-h51995.html http://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-idil-de-teror-operasyonlari-bitti-114-terorist-8238094/ http://odatv.com/o-ilcede-operasyonlar-bitti-0803161200.html http://www.hurhaber.com/idil-de-operasyon-bitti-haberi-62002.html

Sur, Diyarbakir

100% Turkish victory! Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The map

Why do you keep changing it? The one by nordnordwest is accurate, the current one isn't. Can we get a consensus on this? I hate making the same points over and over again and not being listened to.... it's exhausting. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is pissing me off. Please stop. I'm restoring the accurate map AGAIN.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kordestan: Holy shit! I didn't even know that map existed pretty cool. I wish it used the other map though. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Color

It might be better to make the govt red instead of green, to make it more distinguishable

I'm all for it. I definitely think the Kurds should be yellow though considering they are colored shades of yellow in other modules, also it fits with the sun in the alaya rengin. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is against the original purpose of this map. See Module_talk:Turkish_Insurgency_Detailed_Map#Map_standards. The aim is to combine all maps into Middle East crisis map with Red for pro-Iranian axis, lime for Sunni Arab League forces, Yellow for Kurdish factions, Black for ISIS, Grey for al-Qaeda, Blue for non-involved.GreyShark (dibra) 10:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

See Template:Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese and Turkish insurgencies detailed map.GreyShark (dibra) 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree about them being red. Yellow and green are close to eachother, also red de facto here means "government" --Monochrome_Monitor 14:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, oops. I didn't know red was for the Iranian axis, I thought it was for the govt. Though I suppose the government of Syria and Iraq are both part of the Iranian axis.... anyway, I still think the color choice is not particularly color-blind friendly. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

what???

What is up with these colors? TWO greens for Turkey? Is there a reasoning or can I change it? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there isn't any pattern to which were made dark and the others light either... --Monochrome_Monitor 01:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)