Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War

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)

 Done. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hannivka

@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)

The Black Bird Group, on the other hand, didn't mark Russian progress that far. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

ISW maps from this time period are unfortunately very suspect and frequently contain glaring errors such as:

• Severodonetsk in red on 26 February and from 3 March to 28 March.
• Ocheretyne, Novooleksandrivka, and Arkhanhelske were portrayed in red from 4 March 2022 to 12 April.
• Unexplained 15km aberration in the front line west of Ocheretyne to Tarasivka in orange on 16 March, corrected by 12 April
• Zelenyi Hai, Komar rural hromada, was mistaken for Zelenyi Hai, Volnovakha urban hromada and placed in orange from 11 March, (see 11 March report for context), creating a fictitious 50km-long northward protrusion of the frontline from Urozhaine to the misidentified village, encompassing Velyka Novosilka, parts of Bahatyr and Komar, and everything in between, only corrected 4 April.
• 40km protrusion of the frontline into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast from Marianske to Sadove outside of Kryvyi Rih, in red on 22 March, corrected by 27 March
• 20km protrusion of the frontline into Donetsk Oblast up to Khrestyshche, Donetsk Oblast just outside of Sloviansk, in red on 26 March, corrected by 4 April
• Apparent mistaken placenames in the case of Rubizhne, Kharkiv Oblast and Lyman, Kharkiv Oblast in red on 11-13 March and 14-26 March, respectively.

So, in the absence of at least a few words explaining why the changes to the map were made, the examples above would seriously dissuade me from using the oldest ISW map archives as any sort of historical authority, which I don't think they are meant to be in the first place, because if that was the case one would expect some of these issues to have been corrected. And these all appear to be genuine mistakes, since the areas were not turned blue, meaning ISW acknowledges the Russians were never there in the first place. Also, the reason for this particular removal of Hannivka was because in addition to having no sources this region is also subject to the same vandalism concerns I mentioned in the other reply, see Russian occupation of Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava oblasts. Best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this very insightful reply! It does indeed seem that ISW maps were not reliable back then, even in areas marked blue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The blue-marked areas may be relatively more reliable but I would personally always use a source that explained the change in territorial control in writing, instead of relying on interpreting a map. I have noticed you may not believe in the exact same idea, based on your reply above regarding Vovchanski Khutory, Kharkiv obl. Best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed you may not believe in the exact same idea I 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). ;)

But you're kinda right: I would consider an ISW map-only change reliable now, unless it felt off or exceptional. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Pershotravneve

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)

BBG also broadly supports that assessment. It seems like this settlement was simply bypassed by Russia when heading to Kiev. Maybe there weren't even clashes there. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

In general, if there is no additional context to draw on, I would advise extreme caution in making any judgements regarding territorial control from maps of the February-April 2022 combat in the northern oblasts, due to the heavy fog of war, incomplete information, and the very complex situation developing over a massive geographic area, which is completely different from the nature of the war today, where there are clear lines in almost every meter of the front.

As it relates to Zhytomyr, I am in possession of sources that indicate that that area was never Russian-occupied, which I plan to update Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast with soon, but the removal was based on the fact that there was no source and the topic of Russian operations in Zhytomyr Oblast has been subject to repeated apparent vandalism by the user who added the information in question (see the occupation article for an example of what I mean). SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

ISW update

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)

Heorhivka has also been updated as well today 73.145.137.48 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Klishchiivka has been updated by ISW, just trying to keep you guys on track. 73.145.137.48 (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't had time to look at the ISW report for today, but it's updated now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine has just recaptured Tykhe, according to ISW 73.145.137.48 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to cover the report tomorrow. The latest map also showed some other interesting developments. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:36, 20 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)

Could it be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 212#Recent change somewhere in Wikipedia/Wikimedia has broken chart labels in Module:Chart? Nurg (talk) 08:12, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Fix overlay

Help to fix this overlay in separate oblasts of future former Ukraine. 46.191.177.243 (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we cannot tell the future. Nurg (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Staromaiorske

What’s up with the Russians “likely took” Staromaiorske? 73.145.137.48 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The "likely" refers to the specific date. It's considered red in the status column and map anyways. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:37, 20 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)