Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Too many templates

It appears that this article would require restructuring or splitting, as it is has too many templates in use, starting to break some functionality. Please see Template_talk:Reflist#Not_expanding for more information on an example. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I noticed your edit summary when you removed the warning. I will try to explain more precisely here. The issue is that the allowed delay for server-side template expansion is being exceeded. At some point in the page, all templates stop working. See for instance the "Template:Reflist" at the bottom, where the footnote citations would normally display. Also note the page loading time, most of which is because of the server-side delay before the page is being sent to the browser (~10 seconds allowed cpu time). This also causes the article to automatically be included in the special category Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Also, if you go into edit/preview mode, at the bottom under "Parser profiling data" can be seen the report. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the server-loading issues has more to do with the amount of data/objects in the module itself, not in the templates used. For example, the sheer number of objects/locations in the Syrian Civil War module alone is probably what caused the Middle East conflicts detailed map module to crash in the first place. That issue is still unresolved, by the way. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

An Important Message for ALL Map Editors: Please Refrain from Adding Extra, Nonessential Villages

@EkoGraf, Tradedia, Paolowalter, Spesh531, Niele~enwiki, and Mehmedsons: Hi there. This is LightandDark2000. Today, I noticed a massive issue with some of the larger map modules that has the Syrian Civil War map integrated into them. The Middle East conflicts map had crashed nearly a year ago because too many items/locations have been added to this Syrian Civil War map. Today, the addition of even more villages caused the smaller Levant conflicts map to crash as well. I had to go back and delete a dozen or so villages in order to get that map working again; as for the larger Middle East map, a much larger reduction would be needed (which will require the efforts of multiple users to get it done), which I will not attempt at this time. So please, DO NOT ADD any extra insignificant villages or locations unless absolutely necessary, otherwise we will have more map modules breaking down. If people continue to add more items to this map casually, eventually, even the Syrian Civil War Map will crash as well. Instead, extra villages from inactive fronts or crowded areas need to be deleted/cleaned up. In the past, we've had a couple of diligent users who helped clean up and de-cluttered in active fronts once the fighting shifted away from an area, which kept this problem from ever happening before. However, this maintenance stopped over 1 year ago, and with the addition so many villages and localities since then, this map has become extremely cluttered and very burdensome on the Wikimedia Foundation's systems. Because of this, we have to maintain the map ourselves. So, to everyone who views or edits this map, please be very careful with your editing in the future. Thank you.

The larger map modules seem to break down if the Syrian Civil War map exceeds a size of 756,000 bytes. As a result, I think that we need to reduce the map to at least 750,000 bytes, or even 700,000 bytes to be safer. To restore the Middle East Conflicts map, a reduction to 600,000 or 500,000 bytes will probably be needed, but I will wait for user input before attempting to restore the larger Middle East map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the Afrin, Latakia, and East Aleppo (Deir Hayfer) areas need to be decluttered/cleaned up. Eventually, I will start by removing minor villages from the Afrin District, because it appears to be the single most crowded place on this map away from any active fronts, which also happens to be jammed with too many insignificant villages to make things worse. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing villages on the Syrian map is a good way to keep map size down. However, the easiest way to do this without removing settlement data is to remove mountains and hills that are far behind the frontlines. Many of the hills in Latakia province and west of Palmyra could be erased without taking away anything important from the map. Do you agree? TheNavigatrr (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Some mountain peaks and hills should be kept, but a large number of them can be removed. Unfortunately, the problem has grown so large that many of the villages have to go as well. The Afrin and Latakia areas could seriously use some cleanup, for starters. BTW, this discussion should go under the heading in the Syrian Civil War map's talk page, because this is such a big issue. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The Afrin District should be reduced to the level that it was at about a year ago here. (Note: Please do not submit the changes in the preview link. Instead, enter in one of the map module's titles, such as Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, into the "Preview Title" bar and hit "Show preview".) LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Removing villages from map is considered vandalism. Most certainly in a now important conflict area as Afrin.

If the it would be a problem for users that there are to many objects on the map, the module should be split in different modules for east, north, west and south Syria. Or by creating a seperate light weight and a detailed map. But certainly not by removing valuable data.

The syrian detailled map should not consider problems resulting from the creation of a Middle East conflict map having to many objects.

Someone can make a 'world conflict' map with all conflict data included from whole the world, but that's their responsibility. This should NOT result in reduction of the importand level of detail of the detailled 'one country'-maps.

--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A better sollution would also be to place all villages larger then size 6 or 7 and all object smaller then size 5 or 6 into two separate modules.

And let the Middle-East and multi-country conflict maps, include only the module with larger villages and towns.

While one-country-maps shows the detailled module with smaller villages that also includes the module with larger villages and towns.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 Is not a good decision we can't just removed villages. We not have this problem earlier but if we begin remove villages be will broke the a real situation at the ground. I against such action, we need another decision. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It will also be intelligent to remove some detailed map as qamishli or aleppo who are closed front or nearly totally red. I think that we should remove some of the villages situed in the large desertic spaces controlled by SDF in northern Syria and use a more extensively the icon rural presence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

LightandDark2000Niele~enwiki We can removed villages and checkpoints which present at our map and also accurately marked at such maps as Rif Aleppo2.svg, Rif Damashq.svg, Battle of Daraa City.svg and others. Here is an example:link Mehmedsons (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I also remove unused links. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the proposal of removing villages cluttering areas far behind the front lines. In addition to the areas alreasy mentioned, also north Raqqah and north Hasaka are presented in too detail. We can also remove yellow points on the detailed Raqqah map where it is already yellow. Probably Aleppo can just become a large red dot. Paolowalter (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Army Color change

can we change the color of the areas under SNA and Turkish Army control to Dark Red.In order to differentiate between them and NLF in Idlib.Alhanuty (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alhanuty Seems it's a good idea to differentiate between of the areas under SNA/TSK control and NLF in Idlib. But how we can do it? Or maybe we use dark green to areas under SNA/TSK control!Mehmedsons (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that any shade of red should be avoided for the Turkish Army and Turkish-backed rebel held territory, because this would be too readily confused with the Syrian government held territory. Some other color would be fine though, but of course not any shade of yellow/gold either, since that's the color for the Kurdish/SDF held areas. -2003:CA:871F:F980:9011:EBAF:9228:D49B (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

then brown should be the ideal color,then. Alhanuty (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I have made it on wikimedia.Alhanuty (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_dot_Maroon(1).svg.

@Alhanuty Agree.Mehmedsons (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Then lets begin with changing the color.Alhanuty (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried but it didn't work out peace. Maybe someone can assist me.Mehmedsons (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alhanuty Maybe we need use such icon for areas under SNA and Turkish Army control. At least as a temporary measure. In order to differentiate between TSK/NSA and NLF/some other rebel factions at Idlib area. The current icon is misleading.Mehmedsons (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not a cyan or light blue? cyan seems to be common for Turkey in these types of maps outside of Wikipedia example 12 3 plus brown and red are too similar, especially for people with color blindness. 70.59.226.151 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)