File talk:Rif Aleppo2.svg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:27, 23 April 2014

[March 8, 2014] Thank you for the new map. This larger map makes more sense as to how things progressed.

Legend additions

Very nice map!

The legend could be augmented to explain what the "triangles" signify. Are they checkpoints? Also, it would help if there was horizontal bar, perhaps in the lower left area, indicating scale in kilometers. Hulahoop122 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, the brown triangles are local peak points/heights. It's actually kind of useful since local heights are frequently the points of contention between the regime and opposition. Kami888 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the gray area mean? No control, Islamist control or something else? --109.60.127.225 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The grey/black area means ISIS control. Just like on the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. Esn (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramousah, Jdeydeh and Ashrafiyeh

Per a new pro-opposition map [1] Ramousah and Jdeydeh districts are firmly in government hands, please change them to red. Also, here is one more map [2], based on opposition sources, per which Ramousah and Jdeydeh are government-held, as well as Ashrafiyeh. So please change Ashrafiyeh to red too please. EkoGraf (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about Jdeydeh because I don't know the precise borders of the district and both maps show rebel presence around that area. Only one of the maps confirms Ashrafiyeh and that one is just a very bad source all around for our purposes (clearly very abstract and inaccurate), the other shows it as mostly YPG. Both however appear to confirm that the ring road and everything south of it is under government control, so I'll make the change based on that. Kami888 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They also both show the majority of Salah-ad-din and Saif al-Doula as government held. I am not sure if the map should be changed to reflect that. Kami888 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how its a very bad source? Its HRW relaying what the opposition said. Also, BOTH maps confirm Jdeydeh is government held and there has been no fighting reported in that Christian district for almost a year and a half. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad because it's verifiably wrong about the control of many districts. Anyway, if Ashrafiyeh and Jdeydeh change on the Aleppo battle map and stay that way, I'll make sure to change them here too. Sounds good? Kami888 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jdeydeh has changed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Aleppo_map.svg please update the map as well. Also most part of Salaheddine. Furthermore al-Aziza and al-Maamel went red Paolowalter (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Najjar

Sheikh Najjar half red per maps posted by sources close to both sides of the conflict Pro-Government Pro-rebel The region of sheykh Najjar should be marked ad conflict area: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=23&frid=23&eid=144098 MZarif (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Map

The aleppo map should be edited in my opinion according to this sources. http://pydrojava.net/eng/index.php/news/157-liwaa-jabhat-al-akrad-liberated-3-regions-in-aleppo

And this videos are proof that Jabhat al akrad are present even in Hayderiye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQLyKW-KVSQ

Also i wonder is it still clashes going on in Eshrefiyeh or do we simply not know if YPG succeded to defend it or if SAA captured it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdishFalcon (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why this map doesn't change ,a lots of changes happened!!!MZarif (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New AC map

The map should be updated marking government controlled the areas marked as such by the new AC map: https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/454351857402396672/photo/1 --Paolowalter (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really seeing any gains by SAA relative to the current map, this map just has larger areas marked as contested due to frequently shifting frontlines and disagreements between pro-government and anti-government mappers. For example, it's probably better to keep the entire Sheikh Najjar district as contested for now rather than trying to draw a more precise frontline, because there is no consensus on where exactly that frontline is within the district, and it is still subject to frequent change. Let's try to draw precise frontlines only when we actually know with decent certainty where they are exactly, and when they're not changing on almost daily basis. Kami888 (talk)

In general terms I agree with you. Nevertheless it is a phylosophy different from what is used in the main page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map. Fro this particular case, you can see a large stretch of government controlled area reacing Khan al-Asal and that is a major shift. Also the northern part of Bustan al.Qasr are clearly controlled by the government. Otherwise if you are too conservative, you risk of having an obsolete map, like the one of Battle of Aleppo.79.41.102.144 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you bring up interesting points, but I still think being conservative is better than rushing and having edit wars over minor advances. If you feel strongly the other way, I'm not stopping you from editing the map yourself, you know. :) As for the "large stretch of government controlled area reacing Khan al-Asal" and "the northern part of Bustan al.Qasr", here's a pro-government map that actually shows those areas as rebel held. So go figure, eh? 98.231.43.200 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/512581522183524?stream_ref=10 indicates that the SAA is present in A’ndan. This town should be contested in some way.Paolowalter (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kami888 (talk)

This map is fine until a major shift occurs, or a sustainable advance. Every time someone 'launches an attack' is not enough to just shift fronts. Thanks admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.127.203 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Offensive

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-advance-aleppo-city-2014412101712303691.html

Ramouseh & Rashidin parts need an update. Layramoon must be green. Sheikh Najjar Industrial city regime offensive is stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot videos with rebels in the north part of Ramouseh, a few with easy geolocalization. Yes, I know that this is not a source for wikipedia but complement the previous news.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjPVu55t-To3TEyNEskVi9Q/videos

And a article in EAworldwiev .

http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-daily-regime-trouble-aleppo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.118.73 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aziza

I agree that we cannot change the map just like that for any advance. But I think we should make a list of the changes that must be done eventually. Here is an article from SOHR http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18129&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1Kf9Pl_sYk saying that rebels are on the borders of Aziza, unlike what the map says.Oussj (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map is obsolete

Here is a news and an updated map, which is really significiantly different from current map

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/aleppo-syrias-stalingrad-10320