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:
|
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)
the 79th Air Assault brigade themselves posted that they retreated from the villagedo you have a link? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@ SaintPaulOfTarsus: I've checked the ISW map archives and Hannivka does appear Russian controlled and then recaptured by Ukr around the claimed dates. However, it isn't mentioned in the reports, which is expected as the reports back in the day were not detailed. Note though that ISW maps varied a lot in the beginning of the war. What do you think? Should Hannivka be readded with those references? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed you may not believe in the exact same ideaI do believe in basically the same idea. Hence why I said "ISW maps varied a lot" in the original reply, generally implying the bullet points you latter mentioned. I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't contaminate your opinion when I asked what you thought and make sure your decision wasn't just because of the lack of ref (which could have been worked around with an unreliable old ISW ref since that time). ;)
Pershotravneve, along with other Zhytomyr Oblast settlements, is also marked by the ISW in a similar manner. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
To whoever is here - both Novopokrovske and Novooleksandrivka are both marked as Russian controlled by ISW - please update those. 73.145.137.48 ( talk) 04:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This thing, are you indeed referring to the big Ukraine detailed map? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 14:40, 20 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)
Help to fix this overlay in separate oblasts of future former Ukraine. 46.191.177.243 ( talk) 09:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What’s up with the Russians “likely took” Staromaiorske? 73.145.137.48 ( talk) 03:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
|
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)
the 79th Air Assault brigade themselves posted that they retreated from the villagedo you have a link? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@ SaintPaulOfTarsus: I've checked the ISW map archives and Hannivka does appear Russian controlled and then recaptured by Ukr around the claimed dates. However, it isn't mentioned in the reports, which is expected as the reports back in the day were not detailed. Note though that ISW maps varied a lot in the beginning of the war. What do you think? Should Hannivka be readded with those references? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed you may not believe in the exact same ideaI do believe in basically the same idea. Hence why I said "ISW maps varied a lot" in the original reply, generally implying the bullet points you latter mentioned. I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't contaminate your opinion when I asked what you thought and make sure your decision wasn't just because of the lack of ref (which could have been worked around with an unreliable old ISW ref since that time). ;)
Pershotravneve, along with other Zhytomyr Oblast settlements, is also marked by the ISW in a similar manner. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
To whoever is here - both Novopokrovske and Novooleksandrivka are both marked as Russian controlled by ISW - please update those. 73.145.137.48 ( talk) 04:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This thing, are you indeed referring to the big Ukraine detailed map? Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 14:40, 20 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)
Help to fix this overlay in separate oblasts of future former Ukraine. 46.191.177.243 ( talk) 09:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
What’s up with the Russians “likely took” Staromaiorske? 73.145.137.48 ( talk) 03:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)