File talk:Карта боевых действий на Востоке Украины.svg/Archive 2

Svitodarsk and Luhanske

Who is still putting it under sep control? I already posted sources from first-hand accounts accompanied by bloody pictures from the towns that disproved it. And I´ll be damned if I am going to backsearch it again. In this VICE News report from Debaltsevo, its mayor clearly say that those towns were taken prior to offensive on the city. Vice News is Realible Source per Wiki rules. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Its 3:10 of report. I know that RNBO map does not show it, but RNBO map is shit. Its still showing Pervomaisk as held by UA forces, despite it never being so. Battalion Donbass said the very day they published that, that its BS. They say that whole Slovyanoserbsk district is under UA control, yet Infromator, local media, says its not true. And it took them 2 weeks to include raion capital city of Lutuhyne to the map, long after soldiers boasted of the victory by circulating photos of tanks in the center of city. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I had problems with Svitodarsk and Luhanske as well. --Metrancya (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Svitodarsk and Luhanske not taken by troops. Data from the source Vice News dated on 3 August but here another sources which later reported that this city still not taken nd rebels prepare attack from this town on the town Debaltsevo.sourcesource--Hanibal911 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this time you are wrong. They are discussing possible breakout chances from Horlivka - and one of the pathways is through Luhanske. But there are no insurgents forces right now. --Metrancya (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RNBO map

I want to say, what we must use the RNBO map.

It has some errors, but it's the most reliable source on the topic possible. No one else have the direct access to the data about the controlled territories etc. Even if other sources have some contradicting information, we must choose the info from the RNBO map. With one exception: when the other source has the newest info. --Alex1961 (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This map has not been updated for a long time and on her many inaccuracies:

1)Yasinuvata - still not taken.RBC UAUNNReporter UA 2)Zhdanivka- still not taken.RBC UAUNNReporter UA 3)Pervomaisk - Forces of the Ukrainian Army in the suburbs of city Pervomaisk.UNIANRBC UAUNNReporter UA 4)Miusinck - not taken.Независимое бюро новостей112 UAsourceGazeta UA So according data from many sources confirmed that the map from the National Security Council does not reflect the real situation and cant be used as a source.--Hanibal911 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. There are 2 main reasons why the RNBO map contradict other sources:

1. There are changes in real life. The situation can change itself many times pro day, so newer sources can tell the different story.

2. The notation of the RNBO map is different from our notation. They mark cities as "captured" even if there are still fights, but the Ukrainian flag is mounted. --Alex1961 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Hanibal911. The RNBO map is completely unreliable. I would not allow to use it anymore. Liveuamap (although it has some issues) is much more accurate usually than the RNBO map. And so are other maps like the informnapalm.org map - it is more accurate than the RNBO map. --Metrancya (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your map shows all the time that the city under the control of the army but he is under rebel control. And today many source said that army near Pervomaisk but not in the city. Forces of the Ukrainian Army in the suburbs of city Pervomaisk.UNIANRBC UAUNNReporter UA So stop revert my updates.--Hanibal911 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Too many sources saying this - and only one map considered to be unreliable says the opposite - which by the way could be used as a proof against the RNBO map... --Metrancya (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yubileyniy

The settlement Yubileyniy is not under the control of the army.UNIAN--Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The article did not state that. They simply stated that there was a base of the insurgents within the limits of Yubleyniy. With emphasis on was. --Metrancya (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Horodysche

Maybe the rebels still are present near the village Horodysche.Pravda UA But I could be wrong.--Hanibal911 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Guys, thank you so much for your work! Your meticulous search and analysis of information let people know the real situation in the East of the country. Your round-ups seem to be the most exact and up-to-date mapping of what's happening their, as they match the rumors that spread among the population based on the phone calls received from the battle fields. The belligerent parties distort, hold back or colour the reality. But you seem to be rather successful in sorting that shit out. You let the people in the near-by regions be prepared. --46.250.24.158 07:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused layers and map consistency

Should we delete layers from English SVG file that still present in russian ("legend.text.en", "colors", "text.latin")? There will be 25% decrease in file size if we do so. English file now updates independently and I don't see the reasons to keep useless data. Also please revert "russia" layer fill color back to #dbdbdb. Not only this will improve map readability, but also this layer have function - it masks imperfections in border lines. --Kassigainen (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know how it would be easiest to keep the maps synchronized? Would keeping all of the texts work best? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I designed it with en and ukr language layers to make a single file easily translatable. The idea being that the main image would be the 'master' where we update towns and regional control and then the various translations could periodically make an SVG version with their particular language visible, e.g. conflict_en.svg, conflict_ukr.svg, conflict_ru.svg, conflict_es.svg. The colors layer was my original swatch palette; its purpose is to preserve the palette in case anyone inadvertently screws up the colors. But, I don't really care how people use it--I was just irritated by the image degradation of the PNG version. :-) I probably won't make any more edits, unless I notice that someone has introduced an SVG bug. Marktaff (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Roads

The roads is major territorial resource both sides are fighting to control. It's much more relevant than the administrative boundaries of local regions and as much relevant as administrative boundaries of the towns. It would be helpful to add Roads layer containing at least major highways as well as strategically important local roads.

I thought about adding major roads, but I decided against it. I concluded that adding major roads would require alpha transparency in the cities, city names, and possibly in the region control as well, which would significantly raise the skills and time required for updates to the image. One of my main design goals was to make the image easy to update, as combat is a very fluid situation. Marktaff (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue for Luhansk

Why are we showing blue for Luhansk? The entire city is in a huge battle. Also, liveuamap is reporting battles in Stanytsia Luhanska, possibly due to the large amount of artillery in the region which came directly from Russia.[1] Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

IDK, I would remove it as well. There is chaos in the city, absolute chaos and rumors are varying from one person to another. UA forces have a strict order to not reveal anything in order to prevent seps from gaining knowledge. Seps in city are cut off from the rest, including means of communications (there are only half a dozen spots in city where one can gain signal and they are not place where any armed man wants to be because of snipers). There are parts of the city already under UA control, I know that for sure, but which they are and how large is completely unknown right now. If fighting stops, we´ll know and than we can color it accordingly. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanytsia Luhanska

The rebels drove the security forces from the village of Stanytsia Luhanska. Also the offensive Ukrainian troops to Lugansk petered out . Government forces can no longer control the entire perimeter around the besieged city, and forced to retreat, throwing on the position left arms and equipment. One of these episodes is the combat and confrontation in the area of urban settlement Lugansk The village, which is one of the key points in the implementation of the blockade of Lugansk and is situated 20 km from the city.Times News--Hanibal911 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a single source and one of those typical pro-insurgents webpages and their use of propaganda: "They destroyed all enemies and got a huge amount of weapons left from the retreating UA forces". Someone counted all those numbers and came to the conclusion that the whole UA army should have been destroyed twice in the last 2 months... Apart from that: Stanytsia Luhanska, agreed. The last RNBO report showed lots of fights directly north of Luhansk in different villages. Added. As there was almost no defense against the russian convoy I have to assume that there is now not only a narrow corridor but a solid bridge between Luhansk and the eastern boarder of UA. Lets see.... --Metrancya (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly made you think this is WP:RS? EllsworthSK (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ilovaisk

Part of Ukrainian armed forces retreated from the city Ilovaisk and now clashes continue near the city.UNIAN--Hanibal911 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UNIAN quotes Donbass press office, which publishes its updates on its FB page. Here is the latest [2]. And this is the one they quote [3]. See point 2.3 - as of this morning, city is under control of Ukrainian security forces. Former one is repost of Semenchenko. There he says that "city is ours". Fighting going on on eastern edge of the town where seps are trying to counter-attack. Hence orange remains. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Animation

Hi!

I've made an animation (gif) of the changes of the rebels territories. It's here.

The animation is far from perfect, so feel free to edit it if you want.

In the animation one can see some interesting dynamics. For example, the gradual growth of a "gulf" between Donetsk and Gorlovka. --Alex1961 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. But it also confirms what is seen in reality: mostly there is some "area wobbling" after first UA successes. Apparently Russia is aiming at a frozen-in conflict, each time that UA forces are gaining ground, some special things happen at the boarder to Russia (convoys etc...) resulting in a retreat of UA forces and a new equilibrium between insurgents and UA forces. --Metrancya (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a lot! It's nice to have people who are better at graphic design than I am. It is very interesting to see the evolution of the conflict. As Metrancya said, nice work!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Programs to edit SVG files

As was asked above - which program to use to edit SVG files. The Open Source (and therefore free and available for everybody) program I am using is "Inkscape". That is a powerful and good one - Windows and Linux and OSX versions exist. Other Vector Graphics Editors should do it as well. --Metrancya (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I used Inkscape to make the SVG. While this SVG has a fair number of elements, there isn't anything tricky about it, so it should be relatively easy for those new to SVG to play with.Marktaff (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Identity of liveuamap.com

Note: I am copying this post here from File talk:East Ukraine conflict (English language version).png; it seems that that file will soon be deleted and the talk page with it. I think it might still be relevant. The situation on LiveUAmap looks quite different to the maps from the other side. I notice that nowadays the sources for changes to the map aren't even mentioned in the edit summaries... and it seems that the Russian-language and English-language versions of this war map are now quite divergent. Esn (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

LiveUAmap.com has been frequently used as a source by the editors of this map.

Domain Name: LIVEUAMAP.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1847269271_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2014-02-19 12:41:26
Creation Date: 2014-02-19 12:41:26
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-02-19 12:41:26
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse[]godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:  1.480-624-2505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited

NetRange: 104.16.0.0 - 104.31.255.255
CIDR: 104.16.0.0/12
OriginAS: AS13335
NetName: CLOUDFLARENET
NetHandle: NET-104-16-0-0-1
Parent: NET-104-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
Comment: https://www.cloudflare.com
RegDate: 2014-03-28
Updated: 2014-03-28
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-104-16-0-0-1

OrgName: CloudFlare, Inc.
OrgId: CLOUD14
Address: 665 Third Street #207
City: San Francisco
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94107
Country: US
RegDate: 2010-07-09
Updated: 2013-01-04
Comment: http://www.cloudflare.com/
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/CLOUD14

Domain name registered with the American registrar GoDaddy on February 19 (shortly after Maidan, but long before the military conflict started in April). IP address points at CloudFlare, also an American company.

On its website, it claims to be a "nonprofit, volunteer-run project of civic journalism. Our mission is to tell about crisis in Ukraine all over the world. We gather information from open sources and put it on the map in format of Reds-vs-Blues conflict." By "open sources", it seems to mean pro-Kiev sources only.

It does not claim anywhere that it is based in Ukraine. The existing connections point to it being based and run out of the US. The name being registered so long before any military conflict actually broke out is rather suspicious.

In short, it is very unlikely that this is an independent source.

Esn (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree! This source is not reliable because data in this source in mainly based reports from Twitter and other social networks. So we should not use this debris as a source. And if we want that would our map reflect the real situation we should not use such not reliable sources.--Hanibal911 (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But liveuamap is always providing the source for their statements, so you can follow them - and then you can decide whether or not it is something that can add to our map here. As an entry point to new developments, liveuamap is indeed a good starting point... --Metrancya (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Agree! This map showed that city Illovaysk under control the army. But another sources deny this information. Militants transferred reinforcements to the city Ilovajsk where now fierce fighting, rebels sent armed forces "East" and "Oplot".NB News112 UA24TVIzvestia--Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so after looking at liveuamap and its source you have to look for independent supporting statements. But that is business as usual... --Metrancya (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Truly shocking discoveries! /s But at the same time slavyangrad.org as you refer as "source from other side" has domain registered in Arizona and hosted on wordpress.com commercial hosting platform which is located at San Francisco, US.

Domain Name:SLAVYANGRAD.ORG
Domain ID: D173419031-LROR
Creation Date: 2014-07-27T08:21:37Z
Updated Date: 2014-07-27T08:21:38Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-07-27T08:21:37Z
Sponsoring Registrar:Wild West Domains, LLC (R120-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 440
Registrant ID:CR173197758
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone: 1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext: 
Registrant Fax:  1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext: 
Registrant Email:

IP Address 	66.155.9.238 - 661,629 other sites hosted on this server 	
IP Location 	United States - New York - New York City - Automattic Inc
ASN  United States AS13768 PEER1 - Peer 1 Network (USA) Inc.,US (registered Jun 10, 2002) 

IP range belongs to wordpress.com. So playing with your own rules we can assume that SLAVYANGRAD.ORG also "based and run out of the US" and label them as "rather suspicious". Or we can just stop searching for bloody US hand everywhere and focus on sources. As for the other site "cassad.net" - do you really think that any sane person would count as unbiased non-propagandist pro-russian source of information, site that still use word "junta" describing legitimate Ukrainian government, and "Novorossia" when calling part of sovereign ukrainian territory? --Kassigainen (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kassigainen. This is a stupid point. Probably 80% of sites are registered in the US. And even if the US were the boogeyman that the OP makes them out to be, so what? The guy running the site quite obviously has an extremely poor grasp of English, and is not an American plant given (unlike, for instance, the multitude of actual Russian plants all over the internet). This is silly, trutherist paranoia at its worst. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Slavyangrad.org is a translation website with an aim of translating the Russian point of view on Ukraine into English, so there is nothing odd about it being based in the US. It would be suspicious if it were based in Russia - as it is, the information you've uncovered shows that it is probably exactly what it claims to be: the "hobby" of a concerned Russian-speaking American immigrant who is horrified about the one-sided narrative he sees in the mainstream news. The map I linked to, however comes from Colonel Cassad, whose website http://cassad.net/?do=warmarker , in its WHOIS info, lists the name of the admin (Boris Rozhin) and his address in Sevastopol. Nothing unusual there, either - it seems to be exactly what it claims. http://cassad.net was created on April 11, 2013, shortly after the Donbass War began on April 6 - nothing suspicious there, either. It wasn't registered months before the conflict even began like LiveUAmap was.

As for "plants", all major countries probably have programs dedicated to shaping online discussion - Russia is hardly alone. Ever read about "Online Covert Action"? Esn (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No. We will continue using sources linked by liveuamap. If you don't like it, you can create your own map based on your own propaganda sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if you have a good source which contradicts ours, by all means provide it. But nothing to date has shown that we can't use a third-party source aggregator to find good sources (we frown upon relying on the Twitter sources). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dmytrivka and the Donetsk Airport

According to this source:[4], Dmytrivka should be orange (cities where there is fighting) on 9th of August, and it was never orange on this map, as far as I remember. But the Donetsk Airport, in the Russian map, should be blue (controlled by the Ukrainian government), if I'm not mistaken. If the informations I've got are correct, someone could, please, update Dmytrivka in the English version of the map and update the Donetsk Airport in the Russian version on the map? Because I don't know how to edit svg files!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But the 9th of August is long gone. Any new reports on that? --Metrancya (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

RNBO claims that fighting is going on in Dmytrivka today: http://mediarnbo.org/?p=436284.138.79.121 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanytsia Luhanska

To UA government per these pic evidence [5] and [6]. First source is Nastya Stanko, journalist for Hromadske from Stanitsa itself [7], second one is Reuters. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not reliable source because it is only photo from Twitter and no any confirmation from reliable source. And according rules of Wikipedia data from the Twitter or data from another social networks it is not reliable data.--Hanibal911 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The second one is Reuters photo and here is a photo report from Stanytsia [8]. The first one was from journalist for Hromadske. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A source

I found this. Judging upon the comments, not a bad one [9] --109.200.243.144 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

...its a blog. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia

Somehow I get the impression that it becomes an extremely violent Ukraine independence war against Russia which is a completely different thing than a rebellion of UA citizen against their government. I would suggest to paint the Rostov oblast in Russia in (almost?) the same pink colour as the area of the insurgents - just to make the correlation clear... --Metrancya (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We could also fill it all in dark red with hammer&sickle pattern to show USSR's Russia's evil intentions. But seriously, I think that current grey color for Russia is sufficient. --Kassigainen (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The color is fine. Also, Metrancya, please respond to my query above about colors. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Too difficult, I would think (I mean the colours)... --Metrancya (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we can mark the positions of the Russian artillery, which is used for the bombardment of the Ukrainian territory. With gray triangles, for example. But we must indicate clearly, what this info is based on the Ukrainian and NATO sources.

We can also mark the main roads on the Russian territory. --Alex1961 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Colors

Everyone please stop marking all city areas taken by the government as blue. They are only blue if there are no battles in the area. If you want to mark something as government vs. insurgent taken, then please use an entirely new color to distinguish between the two. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

In case I haven't been clear, I'm specifically talking about Horlivka. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. We should indeed mark all city areas taken by the government as blue. BUT. If there are battles in these areas, we should mark it as orange. The same thing with the areas taken by insurgents.

No additional colors are needed. The current schema is:

Blue: settlements or city areas controlled by the government (and there are no battles here)

Red: settlements or city areas controlled by insurgents (and there are no battles here)

Orange: settlements or city areas there are battles now

--Alex1961 (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How accurate are the frontline?

Hi,

I found two maps, one pro-government and one pro-rebel, and both maps show similar frontlines. But both show the rebel-held territory mutch greater.

Sources:

http://informnapalm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Karty.jpg

https://niqnaq.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/22529_original.jpg

Unfortunately I speak no ukrainian nor russian. Do you use exclusive government sources? Are this surces really usable?

Thanks!

Hi! No, we use all reputable sources here. Please compare our map with the official map of the Ukrainian government. --Alex1961 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, do you speak ukrainian/russian? If you do, can you comment the two maps?

Thanks!

I do. Both maps are pretty inaccurate. The first one is greatly underestimating the territory of insurgents (the red contour), the second one - other way around. Our map is in between --Alex1961 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some changes in colors

I've changed the colors a bit. The max extend of insurgency was too much pronounced, i corrected it. And i colored the territory of pro-Russian insurgents and Russia with different shades of one color. The reason: the insurgents are self-identifying themselves as pro-Russian, and top Russian officials openly support the insurgents. So, it's logical to indicate it on the map --Alex1961 (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex1961 please stop inventing your own colors, like pink for Russian layers, and lighter yellow for controlled areas. We will have a mess if every contributor will fix this map to his taste (see PNG color disaster).

Really stop this unjustified vandalism - you discussed color changes with no one. If I feel that map should be painted in dark green with burning red and "it looks better" should I force it without any discussion? Also ofc you wont be the one who will edit all linked map color descriptions on other pages, don't you? --Kassigainen (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not every change must be discussed. But if someone is against the changes, we can discuss.

I'm ready to edit map color descriptions on other pages.

Do you have any arguments in essence against the new color schema? --Alex1961 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already posted my arguments in similar discussion - current grey color for Russia improves map readability (highlighting only Ukraine) and masks border imperfections. Painting this layer in pink is misleading and adds unneeded information - officially there is no war between Russia and Ukraine. As per lighter color for captured territories - the more chaotic changes we make with the colors, the less trustworthy this map will be. Imagine if you edit page about this conflict on specific language and colors on map changing every day without any real reason? --Kassigainen (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Grayish pink can do the same job.

"Officially there is no war between Russia and Ukraine" - thats why the territory of pro-Russian insurgents and Russia are colored with different shades.

But we must indicate the connection between them. There is an indisputable connection: the insurgents are indisputably pro-Russian, and top Russian officials support the insurgents.

"Imagine if you edit page about this conflict on specific language and colors on map changing every day without any real reason?"

And? How can it make the map less trustworthy? --Alex1961 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Grayish pink can do the same job." Bright red fill with hammer and sickle pattern will also do the same job (because I "feel like") but does it really necessary? This map is about Ukrainian conflict and Ukrainian territory. If we want to show Russian involvement then icons with soldiers\tanks\GRAD's like on RNBO map will be a better solution.

"How can it make the map less trustworthy?" Imagine that you have edited map legend on specific page. Then comes contributor who changes all colors in original map because he "feels like they are better" and your legend is now wrong. You edit legend again and again and again, because someone "feels like it needs to be changed". --Kassigainen (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"This map is about Ukrainian conflict and Ukrainian territory. " No, it's not. According to one side of the conflict, it's not an Ukrainian conflict, but a conflict between Ukraine and Russia. We can't ignore a position of a side of conflict.

"because he "feels like they are better"". This is not the situation here. I provided an argumentation for the changes, and a pretty good one. --Alex1961 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

reverting

before you start doing it, opening those sources would not kill anyone.

Horodyschche - http://espreso.tv/news/2014/08/22/za_dobu_ukrayina_vtratyla_chotyrokh_biyciv___rnbo Petrovske - http://www.pl.com.ua/?pid=61&artid=33570 Lenina, Bilorichenski - http://www.segodnya.ua/regions/donetsk/v-luganske-strochat-pulemety-sryvaet-kryshi-goryat-garazhi-545710.html Stanitsa Luhanska is above. Krasnyi Liman - I provided vid in source. Its nonsense, every source claims that UA army withdrew from the area. Now, read more, check those sources and ask before you go on revert crusade. I really do not have time to go through all this thousand times again. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for reverts.

Some of your links were damaged (cuted) because the description of an edit can contain only limited number of characters, so other editors didn't have the ability to check the links. Now everything is ok. --Alex1961 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ivanovka is a long time already under Ukrainian control. Also it impossible to reach Petorvkse without Ivanovka control - http://112.ua/obshchestvo/boycy-ato-osvobodili-ivanovku-luganskoy-oblasti-tyagnibok-99526.html

The many maps on Commons

There are several maps in Category:Maps of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Two of them seem to be constantly updated: File:East Ukraine conflict.svg (1) and File:Карта боевых действий на Востоке Украины.svg (2). The discussion page of (1) redirects to (2) (here). These maps are both updated regularly (by different people) and both are used on Wikipedia.

Language versions of Wikipedia have different uses:

• be-x-old, de, en, et, fi, id, it, lt, nl, pl, ro, sh, sr, zh use (1)
• be, cs, en, fr, pt, ru, sh, sv, tt, uk, sh use (2)

Particularly intriguing cases:

• On en:, both maps are used: en:Timeline of the war in Donbass for (2) and en:War in Donbass and en:Federal State of Novorossiya for (1).
• On sh:, both maps are used: sh:Rat u istočnoj Ukrajini for (1) and sh:Evromajdan for (2).
• (1) is used on be-x-old be-x-old:Крызіс на ўсходзе Ўкраіны (2014) and (2) is used on be: be:Узброены канфлікт на ўсходзе Украіны, 2014.

These maps are distincly different on some important features. Presently: surroundings of Krasnyi Luch/Красний Луч, Dmytrivka/Дмитрівка, Dyakove/Дяково, Zolote/Золотое and city of Shakhtars'k/Шахтёрск (I tried to copy the name as well as possible) are not of the same colour.

Can the differrences be assigned to: a difference of meaning between the two maps, a time lag between updates, the use of different sources, something else? Thanks for the information. Jérôme (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This map East Ukraine conflict is not correct and has a lot of inaccuracies.--Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hanibal911: I suspect so, and that's why I've placed (2) on the svwp page(s), despite the text being in Russian. I would like to use a map with Latin text and legend in English, if that map would be better updated. More Swedes can read English than Russian. :-) Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is because few people wanted to use my SVG the way it was intended, and someone made the russian version the main version rather than my latin version (as it was originally). :-( The *plan* was to have my SVG be the 'main' version, where all the non-language updates were made (city colors, area control, roads, etc), with separate layers for any translated languages. From that, specific language versions could be derived at will to show the current situation, but none of those derived versions would get updated directly. If it were done this way, it would be a lot more consistent. I still think that is the best plan, but I'm not go to try to force it on anyone. :-) Marktaff (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Krasnodon?

A small village south to Lugansk Airport (marked under UA) - please, rename it to Krasny Yar (Красный Яр). TheNeon (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Telmanove

Це ж, ніби, фейк був.--UeArtemis (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Фейк, фейк. Не хвилюйся! --46.250.10.233 05:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please update Telmanove on map , its under Ukrainian control , it was fake for independence day of Ukraine by Russians - http://inforesist.org/press-centr-ato-oprovergaet-zaxvat-telmanovo-i-severodonecka/

Country names, redux

I believe adding the country names is unnecessary (as if the file name, description, and inlay didn't make clear where this is occurring), but, most importantly: it betrays a pro-Ukraine POV by omitting the name of the LNR and DNR as "countries." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as every single country in the world is concerned, LNR and DNR are organization or entities, not countries. The territory the exercise control over is marked and its said that it is under control of DNR/LNR. And given that both of these entities do not have standing army, rather wargroups which cooperate with each other and are coordinated by higher command (Vostok, Oplot, Russian Orthodox Army, Army of South-East, Don Cossacks etc.) and are acting as members of one confederation (Union of People´s Republics), I don´t see a reason why should we do that. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's necessary. Not everyone knows the local geography.

I can't see how adding UN-recognised country names on a map can be POV-pushing. The LNR and DNR are not UN-recognised. --Alex1961 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are we the UN? I don't think they should be our only frame of reference; by similar logic, we couldn't recognize Taiwan, or (until 2011) Palestinian land. If we were talking about a third-party that wasn't a direct belligerent, that would be one thing. But one of the main belligerent forces in the area has declared a proto-state, which is precisely the cause of the conflict at hand. Recognizing one state and not another by definition is providing POV in favor of Ukraine. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is not relevant anymore. Only the name of Russia is marked now. --Alex1961 (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrections need

Look here please

• Insurgents has over control both sides of Seversky Donetz in a small extent (Трёхизбёнка, Славяносербск)

"В результате, вато-бойцы продолжают контролировать оба берега реки лишь на отрезке Долгое - Пришиб и Трёхизбёнка, включая Славяносербск."

• UA does not control Mikhailovka (Михайловка) near Alchevsk and does not control Kalinovo (Калиново) near Pervomaysk
• UA steel keeps fighting near Sofievskiy-Ivanovka-Vakhrushevo (Софиевский Ивановка Вахрушево) around Krasny Luch, this group is looking connected with Debaltzevo, but disconnected with Malonikolaevka/Lutugino

V

Yes, the frontline has changed dramatically in the last 36 hours. It looks like that the government troops are routing in every sector.

Sources: http://cassad.net/?do=warmarker# and http://militarymaps.info/

Who is routing whom amd where? Please clarify. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The advance of rebel troops in the last 36 hours would be impossible if the government troops would not flee. The Azov battalion refuses to fight and fled to Mariupol.

Your sources are two blogs, both heavily pro-Russian. Neither RS, nor NPOV. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ellsworth, please avoid w:WP:OMGWTFBBQ with newbies. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources and Neutral Point of View is 101, if someone does not know what it means than off he should go to rules page and lurk some more. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

wrong url

on the bottom of the map it says

Map drawn and updated with reference to the official map
National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (www.rnbo.gov.uk

URL should be www.rnbo.gov.ua not www.rnbo.gov.uk

I would remove that sentence at all, because it claims that our map is biased by one of the two parties in this conflict. --Metrancya (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Divergence in frontlines

Why do English and Russian SVGs show different frontlines, although using the same set of sources? How to remedy this for getting the same frontlines for both SVGs? RobiH (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The English version is outdated. This (Russian-language) map is updated most frequently.--Alex1961 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you also help out at the English version? RobiH (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You can update it yourself from existing russian version, it still have english names in hidden layer. --Kassigainen (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. RobiH (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Updates

We will need to update along the south, as Russian troops (little green men without an insignia, as previously) have entered east of Mariupol. No credible sources dispute this. I am at work so I can't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would, if I could edit svgs...Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Entered where? There are none in Mariupol [10], there are none in Novoazovsk [11], there are none in Sjedove and border checkpoint Novoazovsk is manned by UA army. If anything, I do not see any proper source confirming any territorial hold, I just see attack from Russian side by seps that was repelled in area Markyne. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a huge amount of dynamics at the moment. The problem: the whole sector along the boarder with Russia is not populated, it contains a lot of forests, lots of hiding possibilities. I would think, that Rebels and Russian Forces are there already for some time. That can yield huge surprises. Especially the road from Donezk eastsoutheast towards the Russian boarder will probably see a lot of armed forces of Russia. But that is known already since almost two weeks. At some point in time (probably now) they will simply unhide and fight. Hard times for UA forces.My personal sympathy is with the UA forces but that will not matter in dealing with this map...--Metrancya (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Russian and the Spanish versions of the map are already displaying a different situation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Some others are showing differences as well. See http://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/ That map is a true, old-fashioned military map. And a good one. But is it true? It is a map from someone who is pro-russian. The staff of the "DNR defense forces" are reporting the same as that map does. But is it true? Where is the independen confirmation? Inforesist.org for example says that there is no "red zone" along the boarder. So, no encircling. But: who is right? You always need both sides and / or independent confirmations. --Metrancya (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That one is significantly different from the map that is now displayed. Curiously, the Russian version is far more similar to the English version than the Spanish version, with a couple of places in the Southeast marked as being disputed now. The fact that is in Russian doesn't necessarily mean that is biased. Even the Ukrainian government map of the rebellion displays areas that are controlled by the insurgents that are displayed in this map as being controlled by the Ukrainian forces [12] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Even the notoriously weak-kneed English-speaking press is admitting this has happened. We have plenty of reliable sources at the moment admitting it. The only one who has not admitted to the situation right now is the Kremlin, who has absolutely no credibility - it has been lying from the start, and caught in its lies (think of the previous time there were little green men in Crimea, which the Kremlin denied were its own). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've expressed your opinion about the English-speaking press and the Kremlin. There are also the Ukrainian-speaking press and the Ukrainian government sources. We have to use some of them, either Western, Ukrainian, Russian or a mix of them. Update according to whatever is most reliable, please! (I can't edit svgs, if I could, I would help).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, that map is absolute non-sense. Hromadtske had few days ago report where journalist went from Schastya, through Sabivka, Lutyhyno and towards airport to do a report with soldiers manning the airport. If the map would be anywhere close to the through, they´d have to go through more than 50km of enemy territory. Its also showing Vuhlevirsk as under sep control what is just baloney. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The first victim of the war is the truth!

The actual map shows the government/US-point of view. This is OK, but you have to rename the map. I combined the government/US-point of view and the rebel-point of view in a new map (min-max-map). Maybe the next days will enlight us.Vitez Kojo (talk) (contribs) 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SORRY!!!

1st - sign yourself. 2nd - I don´t care about that. en:WP:NPOV, find that, read it, while here always keep it in mind. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Magog hands the anonymous man a tin foil hat. Here, you forgot this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fog Of War / white colour

Due to the "Fog of War", I added the "white colour" for "major uncertainty regions / fog of war". I modified the colour of settlements in this area as well to orange-brown. That means now "fighting ongoing / unclear status". Plus reports from UNIAN about the highway between Starobesheve - Kuteinykove controlled by russian forces UA troops somewhat further north being encircled resulted in an extension of the pink colour from Ilovaisk towards the south. UNIAN also mentioned that the commander of Sector B would be encircled with his troops east of Starobesheve. So lets wait and see. --Metrancya (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Between Mariupol and Donezk

I have problems following the course of the events. Apparently, the reported major attack on Mariupol were jut 150 russian irregulars (?), see http://inforesist.org/itogi-dnya-25-avgusta/ . Nothing "serious" so far, if you would call some fights "not serious"...

Much more problematic is the situation between Mospyne and the russian boarder. It is not excluded to have a major attack on Amvrosiivka, as was reported several times today (just disinformation with convoys of up to 250 military trucks and tanks??! ...or what??!

If someone feels confident, please edit "Sector B" according to your informations... --Metrancya (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fog of war is currently thick. But it appears there have been several incursions by the insurgents from Russian territory a) towards Amrosiivka and Telmanove along Uspenka and b) towards Mariupol along Novoazovsk. The attacks started on Sunday and the incursions towards Mariupol and Telmanove seem to have been deception maneuvers, appearantly attempting to cover up the one real offensive towards Amrosiivka and to possibly distract Ukrainian forces. Insurgents seem to have retreated quickly from Novoazovsk after some fights with the Ukrainian National Guard occured near Markyne, back to the border; still this attack caused panic in Mariupol [Youtube]. I found no halfways reliable source confirming the attack on (or even the taking of) Telmanove, so this may have been a virtual attack. The incursion towards Amrosiivka however seems to be real and relatively large scale, involving mechanized units and artillery support. Russian border guards retreated from the Russian side of the border checkpoint near Uspenka, leaving it -- as the Ukrainian side of the checkpoint was abandoned roughly a week ago, officially due to heavy shelling from Russian territory -- unmanned and open for further insurgents to pass [ITAR-TASS]. The attack on Amvrosiivka seemingly was also paired with an attack of the Donetsk-insurgents originating at Mospine and aiming for Kuteinykove, possibly trying to meet the forces at Amrosiivka and create a corridor from Donetsk all the way to the Russian border. It seems much of the southern Ukrainian military forces is in danger of being encircled or has already been encircled in the area east of Illovaisk, around Blahodatne, west of Saur-Mohila. The Ukrainian side does not officially report on this situaton in detail (yet), but the leader of "Donbass Batallion" in Illovaisk sounded desperate, this afternoon. [Facebook]. 84.138.79.121 00:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents - as usual, its better to wait and see bit later. There is a lot of dynamics at place here and we cannot be certain what is going on in some godforsaken villages in middle of nowhere. Just wait and see for the moment and not use blogs as our sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We are always lagging behind a bit - which is of course not too bad if you want to have a confirmation of ongoing events. While looking at http://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/ I could think of that map as a prediction for the next few days to come. Or maybe that is true and real already? Apart from that: There is a fresh report of 100 vehicles in a russian convoy heading south from Starobesheve to Telmanovo - as put out by the ATO press center but not yet added to our map... --Metrancya (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

An AFP team today drove from Novoazov north and reached Donetsk City without seeing any UA forces. No UA forces, just UA ammunition left. Telmanove locals reported to another french journalist that they did not see any pro-RU or RU forces but lots of UA tanks heading south. So the full area covering Starobesheve down to Novoazovsk now white as nobody seems to be there. Novoazovsk: first reports about Novoazovsk being taken by RU forces. To be confirmed. --Metrancya (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure if the "white" applies here. Are the towns flying Ukrainian flag or separatist flag (whichever of them)? You have also villages and towns, such as Slovyanoserbsk, which are under separatist administrative control, but vacant of armed forces, with security provided by local militsya. In many villages there is not even militsya department. Fe in case of Telmanove seps said they took control of the town. Reuters journalists said they saw no separatist forces in the town. Also no Ukrainian military forces as they were most likely deployed elsewhere since Telmanove is not on a frontlines. But administrative control still answers to Kiev. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, arguments accepted by me and certainly acceptable for others. --Metrancya (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian Invasion?

If this map is true we are watching a full-scale Russian Invasion at the moment! http://militarymaps.info/?lat=47.0751595&lng=37.1890987&z=12&t=0 It changes quickly - and there were lots of changes this evening. Any comments on that? (@Zombear: your edits are as good or bad as anything else at the moment...) --Metrancya (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not use http://militarymaps.info/ , as it is not just biased, but more like a Russian-owned fantasy source, for example, at the moment they claim Russians having captured Huliaipole, which is some 120 km from closest known Russian or pro-Russian military group. Even pro-Russian map does not make such claims. I would suggest using http://liveuamap.com/ , which seems to give a better view of the situation and provides sources for each point — NickK (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Major changes needed

Major changes are needed after today's events. AFP journalists confirmed no Ukrainian Army presence south of Donetsk or along the 100 km highway leading all the way to the Azov Sea coastline, which they confirmed is separatist-held. Starobesheve, about 30km southeast of Donetsk, confirmed by both locals, Ukrainian military and AFP to have been captured by separatists. Ukrainian troops surrounded in Ilovaysk, confirmed by its commander. Source here [13]. Further, Ukrainian military confirmed separatists captured seven villages north of Novoazovsk, while the major of the town confirmed separatists entered the town this morning making it at the very least contested. Source for this here [14]. User talk:EkoGraf

Ok, source now [15] Novoazovsk has fallen to the separatists. User talk:EkoGraf

We know that already. If you read the comments today - we (or in fact me) have stated most of that already. But EllsworthSK (see above) also stated, that even the absence of troops does not indicate that a certain area is conquered by insurgents. There is still a mayor with his administration of a town or village. Also: the AFP reporters didn't confirm that the 100km stretch is rebel-held. They only said that they could travel all the way from Novoazosk to Donetsk without meeting UA forces. But for most of their journey (between Starobesheve and Novoazovsk) they also didn't meet pro-RUS forces. In Telmanove they found lots of weapons abondened by UA forces which suddenly stopped being there. no troops at all. You also need to consider, that Ukraine is a huge country, where a few hundreds of troops can go lost easily...

There were a few changes by Zombear today - at the end of the day. Don't ask me why he did that. Of course, Ilovaisk is a cauldron with UA forces encircled. Of course, Amvrosiivka is in danger to be a cauldron by itself. Of course, RU forces could propagate towards Melitopol or Dnipropetrowsk. maybe they do it - or not... --Metrancya (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit: oh, I forgot - the main version of that map is the russian svg version, that one is most up-to-date. The english map (and others) are lagging behind a bit... --Metrancya (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

the AFP reporters didn't confirm that the 100km stretch is rebel-held. They only said that they could travel all the way from Novoazosk to Donetsk without meeting UA forces. But for most of their journey (between Starobesheve and Novoazovsk) they also didn't meet pro-RUS forces. I don't know what you read but you are incorrect. I will quote for you what the source says - AFP journalists saw no signs of government troops south of the rebel-held city of Donetsk, with road blocks on the entire 100km stretch to the Azov Sea manned by pro-Russian rebels. He literally says the rebels are all along the highway. P.S. Pro-Kiev volunteer batallion commander now also confirming Novoazovsk has fallen [16]. User talk:EkoGraf

Where does he literally say its rebel held that article you quoted says "AFP journalists on Wednesday saw no signs of government troops on a road southeast of the rebel-held city of Donetsk,", no mention of Rebels holding it. Its not very clear how much equipment beyond the one tank mentioned were actually abandoned.Daithicarr (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Novorossija war between Russia and Ukraine

Essentially with the meeting of Putin and Poroshenko in Minsk, the War in Donbass was terminated while the Novorossija war started between Russia and Ukraine. It is more or less pointless to update the current map right now.

We need a new large-area SVG map with fewer details concerning small villages. Only major villages are interesting right now. Possibly covering Moldova (maybe part of Novorossija in the near future?) in the southwest, the nuclear power plant Rostov in the east and the nuclear power plant Kursk in the north. With a full-scale war the power plants are major points of concern for both sides and should be added to the map. --Metrancya (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(2014)

For now, this map still seems to be more than ok. If expanding, then why not up to very Portugal? :)--46.250.19.87 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Because the topic is not "Eurasia" at the moment ;-) You are right though, all reports are that RU forces have been stopped progressing, at least in the Mariupol area - although they probably could go forward... --Metrancya (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bezimenne taken by rebel forces

According to this BBC report (29 August 2014 Last updated at 18:09 GMT) based on data by the "Ukraine National Security & Defence Council", Bezimenne (west of Novoazovsk) has been taken by rebel forces. Please someone edit the map to reflect that change. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of maps

Yesterday in the evening: The map http://kot-ivanov.livejournal.com/ is known already (I mentioned it before) and it shows a number of cauldrons where UA forces are surrounded by RU / pro-RU forces. Exactly the same number of cauldrons is mentioned by http://inforesist.org/itogi-dnya-29-avgusta/ - with other words, we have the confirmation from both a pro-RU point of view and a confirmation from a UA point of view. This means that there are three cauldrons on the western side of Lugansk and three cauldrons south and south-east of Donetsk. The inforesist source wrote that the cauldrons west of Lugansk are as serious as the cauldtrons to the south of Donetsk, so we should take them seriously.

Does anyone here voice some concern to use that kot-ivanov map as a good source for the pro-RU point of view? That could provide a map counterbalancing the more official UA maps and news we are constantly using to make our Wikimedia Commons map more accurate.

Today around noon: two of the cauldrons south of Donetsk are in the process of merging (with the friendly help of RU forces shooting dead almost 100 UA servicemen), with the Amvrosiivka troops going to the Komsomolske cauldron. That has been stated by Poroshenko and Semenchenko. No idea about the Ilovaisk cauldron - there was heavy fighting reported. --Metrancya (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)