This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe it’s worth to show on the map, at least approximate location where it had been struck by missiles. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outth (talk • contribs) 09:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Could be an option if it had indeed been a missile strike and the location is known. Probably we need to wait for more info.
But if we go into that, what are the current guidelines for a missile strike to be included in the map? Or to put it differently (as GMRE said), what's a high-profile event? For example, Kramatorsk railway attack is at the moment not marked, however considering the amount of media reporting about it I'd regard it as a high-profile event. Lsvet1 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do you insist that the ship randomly exploded on its own, as the russians claim? How do you explain the obvious revenge attack on Kyiv then? And Kramatorsk is already marked on the map. GMRE (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
My response was not suggesting that I "insist" on anything. Even less that something happened randomly on its own. I merely pointed out that there's no evidence to support either Ukrainian or Russian claims and therefore I'd wait.
The same I could reply to your second question, your hunches about an "obvious" revenge attack for something are not a proof of anything. Otherwise I can say a Russian soldier killing a child today in Mariupol (if it happened) is an "obvious" revenge for the cruiser Moskva yesterday. Or maybe I can come up with some other more or less plausible story - how will you disprove it?
And indeed Kramatorsk (the city) is marked on the map, but not the missile strike on the railway station. I'd suggest you zoom in and check it yourself. Lsvet1 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, cruiser is a military target, and this one is the biggest surface ship loss after WWII, so I’d say it’s pretty high-profile.
BTW Lsvet1 there’s been “undiscussed” changes depicting Russian advances, and I don’t see you complaining this time. Do you complain only when advances are Ukrainian? Outth (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as a definition of high-profile I could agree. Still, I'd wait for confirmation of what exactly happened (missile strike or not).
About your second question, I've indeed seen the changes and I don't agree with them, but as it seems @Viewsridge: still doesn't understand the previously mandated procedure. I just find it annoying it has to be me again to point it out.
Ah so you're suggesting there's a new procedure we should now follow (i.e. BRD, the same as before all the edit warring happened)? "Any account edit warring or adding an unsourced version or unagreed color change will be blocked on sight. Any change should be discussed on the talk page." is from now on irrelevant? Lsvet1 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I also suggest you familiarize yourself with good faith behaviour before you end up getting blocked. The procedure you are referring to was added to the file without a discussion an is not an overseer of WP policies. Viewsridge (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
No, but it was agreed by multiple users to tackle the problem of edit warring and endorsed by an admin. However, it seems you're of the opinion it doesn't have to apply to you. I don't have a problem with following the rules agreed upon by the majority (whatever they are), but I don't like seeing double standards and hypocrisy. Previously (mostly Russian supporting) editors were blocked by not following those rules and hence the same should have happened to you. But anyway, I'm not here to enforce stuff, just to point out the inconsistencies.
Furthermore, even if we completely disregard that the procedure now is the changes are first discussed, you have again made unsourced changes (Russian advances south of Kivsharivka). As stated above, ISW maps can't be used to infer on territorial control. Additionally, in the text they (the ISW) don't make any claims to support your changes here.
What you should follow is actually the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map (as mentioned by LightandDark2000). There you might observe that Borova is not marked as Russian controlled (as is here) but as contested and hence probably all the area east of it can hardly be without any doubt marked as Russian controlled (as you did).
I am curious why the Moskva attack has not been added to the map. There is a source cited above geolocating the location of the incident. Video evidence of the ship after being hit has been commented upon by experts stating the video appears to show damage caused by missiles. Ukraine has claimed it as a missile strike and has the capacity to do so with its Neptune anti-ship missiles. The USA has stated that it was a missile strike. The only wrinkle is that Russia has not acknowledged it was a missile strike. Meanwhile, the Belgorod attack is on the map, despite a similar situation in which only one side (Russia) has stated that it was the result of a military strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambroginogiusti (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"present" in image
I think having a specific date would be better, because "present" will be outdated quickly. As an example, en:Russo-Ukrainian War states it's the map as of April 6. Is that right or not? I can't tell from the image, the upload date doesn't have to be the present situation. --mfb (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
That would imply that the conflict ended in the specific date given. It's impossible not to be outdated at some point, we can't do anything about it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
not a bad idea; what about a timestamp date for the most recent update? "most recent update xxxx-xx-xx" or suchlike. Lx 121 (talk)
The old version of the colorblind map is very bad for colorblind people.
I am colorblind. And every time I get tense when I look at the main map or the colorblind map, that's why I changed the colorblind map! Here is the last version of the map, which is convenient for me to look at !!! -->
@Eoiuaa: i am sorry for your situation. but the colours on your proposed alternative (while better than the green-orange scheme) aren't great aesthetically & the contrasts actually aren't that great for non-colour blind people. the arrows on either side don't stand out that well, & they do not show at all well in reduced-scale (i.e.; thumbnail, etc.) pics. i was hoping we could find a way of shading the mainstream colours for better contrast instead? Lx 121 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but when you change the colors on the map, look at the sites that show how color blind the image is. Eoiuaa (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the version hosted on this file needs to be colour-blind friendly, per w:WP:Accessibility. Pushing that responsibility off to another map is not a suitable outcome given the vast majority of viewers on the Wikipedias won't click through to Commons, so they wouldn't be aware it exists. None of the maps, including the one currently uploaded here, are good aesthetically, in my opinion. But that's not the point of the map, it's to convey information. Getting hung up, like in some of the conversations above, over the colours matching the flags, or highlighting the aggressor, is silly. What matters is the information is visible to all. User:Eoiuaa's cream and orange map works well to do that. It's contrast works (indeed in the case of the Ukraine arrows, better than the current version). --Inops (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
as i said above, the cream & orange map is NOT great for ordinary-vision users; & it scales badly for reduced-size images like thumbnails. the grey arrows are indistinct & the orange ones are almost completely unreadable. Lx 121 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Both of the maps are not "great" -- it's a lot of information to convey in a small image. What matters that the map is made colour-blind friendly while conveying that information. It doesn't scale any worse than the current map. Here's the two at 300px (like the en.wikipedia infobox). Neither are much use at the resolution, both sets of arrows are equally (in)distinct to my eye. Perhaps the Ukrainian arrows can be made darker to alleviate it @Eoiuaa? --Inops (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
actually, NO to my non-colourblind eyes, the orange arrows are less distinct than the red ones (possibly because you've got the chroma on the orange background "dialed up"; more than the red bg), & with everything on the ukraine side marked in grey, it makes a confusing, indistinct mess. one particularly bad item: when a grey bombing marker is placed directly over a grey town marker, it's VERY hard to tell there is a town marker there at all. if we are going with (bASICALLY) monochrome, then the whole map schema (markers, arrows, labels, control of territory, etc.) needs to be redesigned for better contrasts. Lx 121 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. These colors are not visually-appealing at all, so I strongly oppose using them for the main image, or any similar coloring scheme. Not to mention that they also have their own contrasting issues. For the colorblind-friendly map image, there are definitely better alternatives available, as the current colorblind-friendly version has contrasting issues with some of the shading (the grey arrows are kind of hard to make out against the background, for example), and I do believe that more palatable colors could be selected. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
BTW, you can use this site to design your own colorblind-friendly coloring scheme. I believe that there are much better options out there, including color schemes similar to the one currently in use for the main map image. I think a slightly different version of my proposed color scheme ("Option E") in a discussion above would produce a better map, for both normal vision readers and colorblind readers. Examples include [1] (lighter yellow for Ukrainian territory) or [2] (slightly darker pink for Russian territory). Both color schemes I linked here would work very well and are much more palatable for most people. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to change the arrows for Ukrainian advances to blue
Option A
Land
Arrow
Ukraine
Russia
Option E
Land
Arrow
Ukraine
Russia
This is my proposal: To change the arrows for Ukrainian military advances to a blue color, but to keep everything else the same. This keeps our current background colors while giving Ukraine blue arrows, making them easier to see while still keeping the map aesthetically pleasing. I like the idea of using blue arrows for Ukraine, but I strongly oppose any changes to the background colors, or any of the other colors. The background colors are fine just the way they are right now, and I see no reason to touch either the background colors or the red color for the Russian military advances. The other background color changes I've seen were just awful, and I don't think any of them should be used over the current colors. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I have repeatedly said that I do not like the previous version of the version for colorblind people, so I changed it, since the participants in one of the topics supported me. The main map was NOT originally changed by me, I just edited it. At the moment I'm editing a separate file and a colorblind version, because the version with blue arrows is NOT SUITABLE FOR COLOR BLIND! Check it out PLEASE ON THE SITE I SENT EARLIER!Eoiuaa (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Strongly Support Option E. Per my reasons given above. I prefer using blue arrows for Ukraine, but I'm also fine with the status quo. I strongly oppose the other proposals, on grounds of aesthetics. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Option A is unacceptable because it's nearly illegible. E would be fine. Anything with easily visible arrows would be fine. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I really don't care, as long as the map's readable for everybody and that it's as up to date as possible. E would look better though. Dawsongfg (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
much DARKER BLUE for the arrows (that aqua-turqoise-whatever shade is almost eye-hurting & it's lousy for visual clarity & contrast!), lighter (but non-day-glo) yellow for the bg for ukraine. & maybe somewhat darker red for the russian arrows, to maximise contrast? Lx 121 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I am fine with using darker blue arrows for the Ukrainian advances, as shown below, but I think that we should agree on whether or not to use blue arrows at all first. On second thought, I have decided to revise my proposal to use a darker blue, as it does improve the contrast and overall visuals. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Support E but further changes will be needed in the future As a non colorblind person, I really like the look of option E. E would have originally been my first choice for the map colors, but after hearing arguments from a few people who are colorblind, I am no longer fully convinced that this color set really is the best option. Also, I have to say that another thread has a good point. We are too focused on the color of the map, and the front-line updates may be falling behind because of it.--Physeters (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
There really isn't much we can do in terms of changing the colors, before it becomes aesthetically unappealing to most people. We have a separate map image for colorblind users, and so that one should suffice for that purpose. I think that improving the contrast with the Ukrainian arrows is good enough for the main map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I simulated the map colors for colorblind individuals. For my proposal and even the current map, the only issue is that for tritanopic individuals, there is insufficient contrast between the dark yellow and pink colors used for Ukrainian and Russian territorial control, respectively. However, this issue can easily be fixed by making slight adjustments to either the Ukrainian territorial control or the Russian territorial control color. Examples include [3] for making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow (my personal preference, I think), and [4] for making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Using either of the two options I just linked would create a map that works for both normal vision and colorblind readers, and is also visually-appealing. However, this is a debate for another discussion entirely, and we should first resolve the matter of whether or not to use blue arrows for Ukraine on the map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Updated the color for the Ukrainian military advance arrows from the turquoise blue to a darker royal blue, to improve contrast and visibility. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
looks good! :) (i am slighty worried that in grey-scale, i.e.: for many colourblind people, the ukr. colours might be too close in tone to each other now, but if that turns out to be a problem we could try a darker shade of blue, closer to navy maybe. or "fade up" the bg yellow a little) Lx 121 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
We could technically simulate the colors for colorblind people, but I don't know how to do that, and I don't have a lot of time on my hands. I could ask one of the map-makers to create a version of the invasion map with the blue arrows substituted in for Ukraine to help make a better comparison, but that's about all I can do. Anyway, I do believe this proposal is the best compromise available to us. If we uncover significant issues later, we can deal with that then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment - i think we've got enough consensus to at least test-drive the map with blue arrows now? at a minimum, it would be an improvement on the current default colours, while we argue the whole thing out some more.... xD (& this thing IS being used heavily in wm ukr war coverage) Lx 121 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I support E; this fixes the issue of the yellow arrows not being visible against the yellow background, while letting the (dark) text etc continue to be visible and contrastive against the yellow background (the Russian colours seem fine as-is). -sche (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I was about to upload the changes when I noticed how the color looks when applied to the map. It looks quite cartoonish, perhaps the discussion should be started over since users did not see how the color looks when applied to the map. Viewsridge (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, that looks bad... However, a proposal above used a lighter shade of yellow along with the blue arrows [5]. That map also seems to use a different shade of blue. Maybe it could look good if applied. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I personally don't see anything wrong with the colors, and the simulated map. In fact, I think it looks okay - better than what we have right now. I don't think that "cartoonish" is an issue at all if you're referring to the multitude of colors, as war maps like this one for the SDF's Raqqa Campaign use similar coloring schemes. This map for the battle of Raqqa city used different hues, but again, it also uses yellow territorial control and blue arrows. Perhaps using a lighter or a different shade of hue, as shown in one of my colorblind proposals, would make it look even better, but I think we should switch to blue arrows for Ukraine. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
comment - the bg shade of yellow does not go that great with the blue, but it's still better than the eye-hurting bright yellow arrows(!) tweaking the yellow &/or darkening the blue should improve the overall effect (works on the ukr flag after all). btw; i do not see how "cartoonish" applies? i'd association cartoons with garish bright colours, not muddy ones? AND the blue arrows definitely contrast with the background much better; they are actually readable on the thumbnail. i think it is actually the best readability (X aesthetic) the ukrainian arrows have had... (at least in anything that made it to the actual map) Lx 121 (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I've opened up a new discussion at the bottom of the page regarding the colorblind-friendly colors I mentioned earlier. It looks like we have a clear consensus here to use blue arrows for Ukraine, but I can continue modifying the proposal as necessary. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Rendering request for readability
Would like to request that the minimum font size currently used across the image be increased by 25%; zooming in on the map and closely inspecting everywhere that the minimum-sized font appears to be used, it appears to me that with more optimal, intelligent placement of labels, AFAICT there is definitely sufficient room/space to accommodate increasing the minimum font size used by 25% while still avoiding visual collision/clutter of labels. IMHO this would vastly improve readability. Thanks so much in advance to everyone who has done such amazing work on this informative graphic —PowerPCG5 (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
*STRONGLY SUPPORT - the minimum font size is waaaay too small on my laptop screen as well, even @ max image resolution/size. have commented on this before. 06:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
& back to the war.... >__<!?
things are heating up again; & map positions will be moving, at least in small increments. we should really try to get in at least 1 consensus-update of the frontlines per day (& stick to it for subsequent edits). whatever we are doing about the colours, translations, etc. Lx 121 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
where is it located exactly? wikip/en doesn't have a listing & i can't see it named on our ukr war maps(?) Lx 121 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Mariupol's port is controlled by Russia and/or DPR
For a few days, every single detailed map (no matter if Russian, Ukrainian or some foreign one) shows that the only uncontrolled Mariupol's area is Azovstal, which is not a sea port (an actual sea port is few km away to the SW). So it should be marked as controlled by Russia and/or DPR, not the Ukraine as now.
Also Russian official sources have stated that the whole resident area is already controlled by Russia, Azov forces are blocked in the tunnels with no chance to escape (not on the surface). Anyway, there is a video with Putin ordering to cancel the storm of these tunnels below Azovstal in a favor of siege to save more of his own people. So, I guess, while the "dot" of Mariupol can still remain as "contested city", but that tiny yellow land below this dot can be fully colored red. --M1911 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that being sieged with no resources in a limited area doesn't really qualify as "controlling" a part of the city. Yes, there is still a considerable amount of Ukranian troops in Mariupol, but the control of the city is de facto Russian. 93.34.233.4606:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Azovstal is right in the center of the city, it’s quite large and it’s under Ukrainian control. More so, Ukrainian troops continue to launch successful attacks from it (I don’t know what you mean by ‘no resources’, there’s still plenty of ammo). So until it is taken or neutralised in some way I don’t see reasons to treat whole area as under Russian control. Outth (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, please, consider the first part about port, mentioned in the topic name: regardless of how we define the control of Mariupol, the port is already controlled and thus should be red, not yellow. --M1911 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we have two very different interpretations of the concept of "controlling" a city. Being barricaded in a limited area doesn't mean preventing the enemy to have control of the city. 93.34.233.4606:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Defaultkid99: Your browser's language preferences may include Greek or Russian. In that case, your browser will display Greek or Cyrillic place names rather than the default. See Setting language preferences in a browser by W3C. SVG Translate has a bug: it does not add a systemLanguage="en" clause, so setting your browser to prefer English would not select English place names in the map. I have fixed that problem in a few places (e.g., the map legend and dates), but I have not added the clause for several hundred place names. I am planning a fix soon. Glrx (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Psubrat2000: You would have seen the default (English) until the Greek translations were added by NikosLikomitros in the version of 22:17, 20 April 2022. After that, you would see Greek text unless the text is one of the few that have an explicit (non-default) English translation or no Greek translation. I believe you should see front line dates in English, but many place names will show the Greek translations. For place names with a Greek translation, only Kyiv, Odesa, and a nuclear power plant will show up in English because they are the only place names that have an explicit systemLanguage="en". I will fix that problem, but I cannot do it now because others are editing the file. Glrx (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal on changing the map colors to aesthetic, colorblind-friendly colors
There is a discussion on en.wiki right now over using colorblind-friendly colors for this map. We seem to have a consensus for using blue arrows in the Russian invasion map (even though we're still ironing out the specifics right now - please see this discussion above), but given the recent developments, I think that it's finally time for us to have this discussion. Given the ongoing debate about using colorblind-friendly colors for the map, I think that we should finally settle the issue and come up with a workable, widely-acceptable solution. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Which is better? I've listed two different colorblind-friendly coloring schemes below. One option [6] involves making the Ukrainian territory a lighter yellow, and another option [7] involves making the Russian territory a slightly darker shade of pink (the closest option to the current colors and my proposal). Both of them have good contrast, are distinguishable both for normal vision and colorblind readers, and are similar to the current, widely-accepted map colors. Not only that, but these colors are more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. Both coloring schemes work for both normal vision readers and colorblind readers, as indicated by the colorblind simulator in the links I provided. They're also similar to the current map colors, so they will probably be acceptable to most users and map editors. I don't know how to generate SVG images, so unfortunately, I cannot provide simulated maps here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Either Option 1 or 2 – Per my reasoning above. I might have a slight preference for Option 1, but I really don't care which one we end up using. Whichever one works best for you guys. These colors are distinguishable for both normal vision and colorblind readers, and since they're similar to the current colors, they're both intuitive and probably acceptable to most people. Accessibility is important, but it's equally important to have maps that are both workable and acceptable to people with normal vision. I'm also open to making slight amendments to either of my proposals, as needed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit: I decided to modify the yellow for Ukraine for Option 1, as the original yellow for Option 1 appears too intense when used on a map. Changed it to a less intense yellow used in other war maps for the Syrian Civil War (such as the Raqqa campaign maps). LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I've tested out the map options using this colorblind image simulator. Options 1-3 all work out for the various types of colorblindness, though Option 4 clearly fails, as there isn't nearly enough contrast between the yellow Ukrainian territory and the yellow arrows. I think that we'll have to use blue arrows for Ukraine, regardless of which option we choose. Monochromia (greyscale) is the most difficult to accommodate, but Options 1-3 work for those individuals as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Both Options Are Great! I think both options are a great improvement to the current map. If I had to pick a favorite, I would say Option 1 is the most visually appealing. Physeters✉21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Either is ok but I personally find Option 1 easier on the eyes. I presume we can still do different bombing shades (for old vs recent), whatever the scheme? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Having put the image in a colorblind filter (using this url in the textbox "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Ukraine_War_colorblind_options.png") and given what they look like in a full color spectrum, I like option 1 the most. I really do not like the bright yellow used in options 3 and 4. Also, the colors for the Ukrainian arrows are very faded against the bright yellow in option 4, as they are a bit rough on the eyes. Also, I hope you don't mind that I added an image into your top post @LightandDark2000: that gets rid of much of the noise (like the bombing locations and cities, which I'd image would warrant discussion after an agreed upon color scheme), that way, people can see what the proposals would look like in action.Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext)00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Support 1 and 2
1 and 2 are good. Perhaps it is possible to combine the red of Russia on map 1 with the yellow of Ukraine on map 2.
Fogener Haus (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
That would not work, as both colors would have the same brightness, not suited for colorblind users. RobiH (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Having the same brightness is not an issue at all. I've heard it both ways - some people have said that the brightness needs to be different, while others have said that they need to be the same. What matters is contrast. And as you can see here for Options 1 and 2 [8][9], the contrast between each color is great enough that both normal vision and colorblind readers will be able to clearly distinguish the colors from each other. So yes, it will work for colorblind readers. These colors are definitely an improvement over the current ones for colorblind readers, and they're definitely better than the colorblind colors being discussed on en.wiki for the colorblind map when you look at everyone's preferences. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Technically, we could use the darker pink in Option 2 for Option 1, as it would increase the contrast between Russian and Ukrainian territory further [10]. But there is already enough contrast between the colors in Option 1, in my opinion, and I'd like to see what the consensus is before considering that adjustment, as it would decrease the contrast between the Russian territory and Russian arrows a bit, as shown in both the link and the map simulation for Option 2. It would potentially make the Russian and Ukrainian territorial colors indistinguishable for monochromia (greyscale) readers, so making this change may not be a good idea. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
observation - we have a clearly defined front-line boundary between rus-ukr positions/holdings (& i believe it is bolder on current positions, fainter on past?) that at least reduces the need to fiddle the chromas on the bg colours for contrast. brightening the bg definitely makes the arrows lose contrast. what if we SHADE the russian territory slightly grey-ish (with the red) & leave the ukr territory "clear" (unshaded; i.e. light/pale yellow, no grey tones), instead of making the rus. bg colour brighter? Lx 121 (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I seriously like the red on option 2. Support option 2. However option 1 is good as well. It should be one of the two. Thanks LightandDark2000 for your efforts here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Deju-vu all over again.... - we have had this conversation SO MANY times now. please could we just do something instead of talking endlessly & changing nothing? (i thought we had finally reached a consensus on changing the colours last week?) i like the UKRAINIAN COLOURS IN #2 best, then #3 (2nd place). i hate the RUSSIAN COLOURS IN #2; the contrast between arrows & bg is not as good & the colours are also less-pleasing aesthetically. for an "ordinary sighted" person, the russian-side contrasts in #2 are the worst & the ukrainian-side contrasts in #4 are the worst. Lx 121 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
my TL;DR would be: ukrainian side colours from #2 or #3 (though you could dial down the chroma on the bright yellow background in #3 a bit), russian side colours from ANYTHING BUT #2(!) Lx 121 (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't really matter much now since Option 1 has been implemented (via consensus here and on the en.wiki discussion), but regarding tweaking the Ukrainian and Russian colors, there's only so much you can do before they become too similar in shading or color for colorblind individuals and thus fail WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I already previewed the original map with colorblind simulators, and the dark yellow color for Ukraine and the pink for Russia are too close in color for Tritanopic individuals. This is before we even get into the issue of the dark yellow background and bright yellow arrows for Ukraine, which was clearly causing problems both for normal vision users and colorblind people. You either need to make the Ukrainian background lighter (which is what Option 1 does), or you need to make the Russian background darker to generate sufficient contrast. You can do both, but you'd be introducing additional changes to the map that are probably unnecessary, as Options 1 and 2 accomplish the same purpose with fewer changes. Keeping the background color for Ukraine in Option 2 (the original Ukrainian background) absolutely cannot be used with a lighter pink for Russia, such as the one in use for Option 1, because otherwise, the contrast isn't sharp enough for colorblind individuals to tell the difference. Keeping the original background combination (or something identical) just isn't a viable option here. You could argue that the frontlines are marked by darker colors that make each side's territory stand out on the map, but we should not be relying on the frontline markers to show our readers who controls which piece of territory on the map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Historical-irony note - the Ukrainian-side orange & blue in option #1 comes fairly close to the colours of the Russian saint george's medal (among other things, that being the most-pertinent). perhaps we should re-think that colour-combo? ...xD Lx 121 ( talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
follow-up - btw, the colour treatments of the russian side in #2 & the ukrainian side in option #4 actually make the maps harder to read for some other types of visual impairment. (on acuity & colour-distinction brightness/contrast issues; in #4 the grey doesn't stand out enough & too many things are coloured grey, in #2 the arrows are a little uncomfortably bright in full size, & yet they do not stand out as well as the "default" russian colouring, against the background, in reduced or thumbnail sizes. same problem i mentioned elsewhere; the bg chroma is dialed up too much...) Lx 121 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think one of the colors being a little bit similar to the colors in the Russian St. George Ribbon is really an issue. There are probably relatively few people looking for such similarities to begin with, and the color for the St. George Ribbon flag is also a much deeper shade of orange. It's really not that big of a deal, as long as most people are fine with the color scheme. Also, we've used that particular shade of yellow in Option 1 multiple times before in the past. I did not pick it out of thin air. It has actually been used to depict SDF/Kurdish control in war maps for ISIL and the Syrian Civil War, such as this map for the 2017 Battle of Raqqa. As you can see, the map uses the same shade of yellow, and also blue arrows to mark the 5th and final phase of SDF advances into Raqqa city, similar to the proposed colors for Ukraine for Option 1. Multiple other Syrian Civil War maps use the same shade of yellow as well, so I don't really see that as an issue here, as this is something we've done before. Additionally, the yellow and blue colors used for Ukraine in both Options 1 and 2 resemble the colors of the Ukrainian flag much more than they do that particular aspect of the Russian St. George Ribbon, in my opinion, so an argument could be made that using the color scheme in question places the map closer to being in line with the Ukrainian flag, an option a lot of people would seem to prefer. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
i'm not clear what your last comment means? we have not reached a consensus for option #1. & as stated above, using orange for the ukrainians is problematic, as the colour is now associated with the pro-russian "separatist" side. aesthetically, i like blue & orange as a colour combo too, but it's a poor choice for representing the ukrainians. it had a positive meaning in the ukr 'orange revolution' back in the 2000's, but the main use now appears to be the orange & black D&L breakaway movement. (& i don't really think it's a great "pallette" for the map; an awful lot of end users are going to think it a pretty peculiar colouring choice, rus-ukr history & symbolism aside) Lx 121 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think his comment refers to the possibility of things going wrong. I'm not exactly sure what it means, either, but I think it could be referring to technical difficulties in implementation, or further disagreements on which option to use. However, this doesn't really matter now, since there is overwhelming consensus on the discussion on en.wiki to use Option 1 going forward, and that discussion also included a handful of the same participants here. There is also strong consensus or openness to using Option 1 (there is also support for Option 2, but it's not as strong as the support for Option 1, from what I can tell). The changes have since been implemented, and I don't see any further issues at the moment. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Names of Ukrainian cities in Russian in Ukraine. Area near Kharkiv
1. Please return the names of the cities in English. To see in Ukraine the names of the main cities of Ukraine during this war in Russian is a mockery. Just imagine that during the Battle of Britain in 1940, the names of London and other major British cities in English-language encyclopedias began to be signed in German instead of English.
The names are in English. If you're seeing them in Russian, it's because this is a multilingual SVG. You apparently have your browser set to Russian as default. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that the Ukrainian names should be added to the SVG file. However, I do not have the technical expertise to do this (I am no expert in editing SVG images, much less making them multilingual). LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The Institute for the Study of War says that there is partisan warfare going on around Melitopol and just north of Kherson City. Should this be represented on our map?--Physeters✉21:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm open to either option. If we do include that area, we should used a dashed color scheme (Russian and Ukrainian background colors), and add a striped "partisan activity zone" or "insurgent warfare zone" to that part of the map, similar to this map for the War in Afghanistan, in 2000. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
ISW itself presents no reliable sources that the so called "partisan" warfare is acutally happening and in which way.
We already have huge problems with the accuracy of the map and struggle to determine who chontrols what, and we are talking about regular armies.
[Meta] How to download original SVG in other languages?
I recently translated the image to Ukrainian and now I can see it when I chose uk version in the render in other language menu, but I only can download the png of different sizes. When I press on the original file button it redirects me to svg in English. How can I download the svg in other languages? I know there are other versions of the image but that's quite different. 4YouTer (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@4YouTer: The SVG file is multilingual: it has all the translations in the SVG file. There are not separate SVG files for each language. Which language is displayed depends upon the viewer (aka user agent). If you open the SVG file in a browser such as Chrome or Firefox, then the displayed language depends upon the browser's language preference settings. Chrome or Firefox will try to display the most preferred language. See Setting language preferences in a browser by W3C. If your language preference settings prefer English over Ukrainian, then the map will display in English. If your preference is Ukrainian over English, then Ukrainian text will be displayed rather than English. Which language is displayed also depends upon availability. Even if the preference is Ukrainian, English text will be displayed if Ukrainian text is not available. Glrx (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Glrx: Oh, now I get it. Yeah, I changed the content language to Ukrainian and now it displays in Ukrainian. Thanks a lot! Can I somehow extract only the Ukrainian part from it tho? So it wouldn't be multilingual, like here maybe. 4YouTer (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@4YouTer: The simple answer is Commons does not have a tool that allows you to download a localized Ukrainian version from a multilingual file. Commons should have such a tool and use it in its thumbnail process. Instead, Commons has had broken language processing for years. Commons works OK for language tags such as en, fr, it, and uk, but it breaks for Chinese (zh-Hans versus zh-Hant) and Serbian (sr-Latn versus sr-Cyrl). This particular map is doing quite well. Users can add translations with SVG Translate and others can edit the file with Inkscape. If the original author had used Adobe Illustrator, we would not have been able to use SVG Translate. There have been some trouble spots. For example, Inkscape is perfectly happy to stick a rectangle in the middle of a translation unit. The stars aligned for this file. All told, this file is getting lots of views, and its translations are working out well. The longer view for Commons is that it should allow translations and allow other graphics editors (such as Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw) to modify the image.
The complicated answer is Ukrainian localizations can be done with an XML-DOM scripting language such as XSLT or JavaScript. The script would remove all the SVG elements that have a systemLanguage attribute that does not contain the uk langtag. It would also remove the systemLanguage attribute so the Ukrainian text would always display.
@Viewsridge: What are you changing in the legend? I'm asking because your edits do not change the referenced group but rather explode the group and edit the pieces. That will confuse SVG Translate and its users: they could translate text in the legend, but it will not show up on the image. Glrx (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Cleaning up outdated ochre and red language versions
It would make sense to clean up all the outdated ochre and red language versions. This especially, as this file now has become multilingual and also covers most of these languages. RobiH (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Font size
Am I using the map wrong? Somehow - even at the largest size, city names are very, very small - difficult to read, while month-names are just microscopic! I searched for any prior reference to this issue, and found one unanswered in the archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.112.29 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Load the SVG file into your browser and then magnify it. You can load the SVG image by going to the File: page and clicking on the image. From there, you should be able to pan and zoom the image. Glrx (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Rubizhne
Rubizhne was set to be conquered by Russians, but there are different claims by the Ukrainians and the Template still showed it as contested, ZomBear. Please make it contested for some hours, maybe we get a better view of the situation there in the near future. It seem to be a hot issue right now and contested just reflect this problem. :3 the other small changes were great. --2003:DF:A74B:1E48:6920:82F2:CC48:49FB19:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This map would benefit from including Russian and Belarusian oblast boundaries and major centres. —MichaelZ. 2022-05-02 16:06 z16:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Not unless Ukraine decides to invade either of those, even then they'd probably have their own pages. Maybe for the spillovers but not the rest. 64.82.204.4917:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
How I remove systemLanguage versions?
I was going to update the Catalan version (which is already more or less automated process), but I have seen that now they have put several language versions inside the English document with the systemLanguage function.
I don't have any knowledge in these things, so I wonder, is there any way to remove or disable it besides deleting one by one? Although it does not seem to affect the final result, some language versions have also been automatically "catalanised". --KajenCAT (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want. We should not remove the multilingual / systemLanguage version. It is not labeled as an English version, and it currently supports 13 languages. It is also the dominant file of the group of files. That may be some confusion because the same file is shown in its 13 languages on the file page. If you click the Catalan version, you get File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. If you click the English version, you also get File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. The only thing that changes is the lang parameter; that parameter directs MediaWiki to display a specific language. If your preferred browser language is Catalan, then when you click through to directly view the SVG in your browser, your browser will display your preferred language (Catalan).
There are some monolingual forks of this file, but many of them are little used in articles. From an update viewpoint, it is easier for Italian and German and many other languages to just use this file. For example, the German File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - de.svg was last updated on 1 March and is only used on Wikidata; the Italian File:2020 Russian invasion of Ukraine it.svg was last updated on 17 March and is only used on 3 wikis. You last updated the Catalan File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ca.svg on 7 April, and it is used in only 2 articles.
There is no reason to "delete" these less used (and out-of-date) files. First, they are still used on Wiki sites. Second, the conflict has worldwide interest, so many external sites may have linked to the files. If we deleted the files on Commons, then those links would deadend. The only step we might take is label outdated files with the {{Superseded}} template.
Due to problems with WMF software, the multilingual file is not suitable for both simplified and traditional Chinese. WMF's librsvg does not distinguish zh-Hans and zh-Hant. There are also Hebrew and Arabic versions that have significant layout differences.
I'm "capable" of using Inkscape, but there haven't been any major changes to the front lines in the past couple of weeks for which an edit to the map is needed. (except for the Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast, which has been added to the map, as well as the conrtol of Popasna, which currently is being discussed) As far as I know, the map has been mostly up to date through the entirety of this conflict. Physeters✉18:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Popasna
Popasna is under Russian Control. Ukrainian forces withdrew from the city.
Should we change the colours to neutral colours? I understand that russia is the aggressor. It is wikipedia's policy to look at everything from a neutral point of view and imo red and blue are not neutral colours they are the colours used on military maps to distinguish own forces (blue) and enemy forces (red). What about yellow and pink?
84.70.129.201 10:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to log in. I've signed my actual user name below:
Maearacauaray (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Holy moly I just looked at the history... I don't want to get involved in that color argument. Feel free to delete if appropriate. Maearacauaray (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia is the aggressor country. That Wikipedia is neutral doesn't mean that it has to give false balance to make everyone happy. Imagine how it would treat topics like the Holocaust if that was the case. When we say Wikipedia is neutral, we say it provides facts and does so in an objective manner. It is an objective fact that Russia is the aggressor here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
For a few days already, this map has been missing the Ukrainian counteroffensive around Kharkiv. The murderers may have been pushed back to the border. Please update the map. Here's some sources: [12][13][14][15]. This is a more specific article [16]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been using Inkscape for about a year now, and I've been editing the map. However, I've never dealt with translatable text before, and it seems that I am doing something wrong. It looks like the text I've added to the map (as well as some that I have not) doesn't show correctly in different languages or when converting the file to a different format. When I tried adding my own text, it gave me an error when I tested the translation function (something about nested tspans) so I copied a piece of text from elsewhere on the map and changed what it said and that seemed to fix it. Doing this doesn't seem to change how the translator views what the text says though, as unique phrases I added like "Staryi Satliv" do not show up for translation. It also seems by moving another piece of text "Lyptsi" it also seems to no longer be translatable. I would like to be able to add text myself, so what is the procedure for adding translatable text to the map? (I have included an image highlighting all of the errors in purple so that someone who knows how can fix them)--Physeters✉01:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
22 April Russian advance has 2 boxes and 1 separated text. What should be done with it?
This looks like trying to add several Russian translations of different dates, but they are all going inside an existing translation, so they will never show. Furthermore, the translation unit is fundamentally 14 March.
Thanks for walking me through that @Glrx: Here's one more question. When generating a new piece of text, without copying it from another piece of text, Inkscape generated this code:
The first example is screwy. I'm surprised that Inkscape made it. There is no reason for Staryi Saltiv to put the second word into a nested tspan. SVG Translate does not like that. Furthermore, the second text element in the example is just an empty tspan.
The Ruska Lozova example is what I expect Inkscape to create. SVG Translate should have no trouble with it (but it will create verbose translations because SVG Translate will religiously copy all the attributes to the translations).
Most of the text elements in the file have been optimized for translations, but Inkscape does not use class attributes and CSS selectors. Inkscape uses explicit rather than implied styling.
For dates, I think you can copy the label. Then just insert the date as centered text.
w:Liubymivka is misplaced on the map. This settlement was added, in the incorrect location, in revision 03:02, 21 March 2022. I would perhaps make the correction myself, only I am unsure whether there is a particular method used to ensure that settlements are located correctly. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk)22:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
#title: Find places in Ukraine near a coordinateSELECTDISTINCT?place?placeLabel?location?distanceWHERE{Bind("Point(33.72 47.38)"^^geo:wktLiteralas?coord).?placewdt:P31/wdt:P279*wd:Q12051488.# populated place in Ukraine# Search by NearestSERVICEwikibase:around{?placewdt:P625?location.bd:serviceParamwikibase:center?coord.bd:serviceParamwikibase:radius"10".bd:serviceParamwikibase:distance?distance.}SERVICEwikibase:label{bd:serviceParamwikibase:language"en"}}Order by?distance
According to the ISW & the detailed map, the Port of Mariupol is under Russian control. Is there a reason why on our map it's still shown as Ukrainian controlled or has this just been an oversight?--Physeters✉15:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to update those maps; the uses of the outdated map can be replaced with this map.
The Italian version is marked as {{Superseded}} and is used on just 3 wikis:
incubator.wikimedia.org
ru.wikinews.org
vec.wikipedia.org
Those wikis are free to update their pages to this map. They may also wish to use an older version.
The Ukrainian version is marked as {{Superseded}} and is not used on any wikis. It is outdated, but any wikis that previously used the file have probably updated to this map.
Pockets of partisan warfare in and around Melitopol and Tokmak
According to ISW and Al Jazeera maps, there are pockets of partisan warfare in and around Melitopol and Tokmak. Shouldn't we include them into this map? RobiH (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Date offset
At least in the English version of the map, just southeast of the city of Borova in eastern Ukraine, two date boxes are offset. Text "22 April" is moved south of the box, and the box below that is blank. Can somebody fix this? Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Glrx: Sorry, I somehow missed that thread. I honestly wish I could give you a better answer on what needs to be done, but I don't know what is wrong either. I wish you the best on finding the error. --Johnson524 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The id="use9538-8" suggests the second use is an Inkscape clone of id="use9538". Given, that, I will remove the cloned use and move the original to the text.
Now we have the map colours sorted, could we look at greying out the bombardment symbol after, say, a week? By now, they map is probably seriously misleading (as far as the bombardment symbols go), as there's no way of telling whether a place was bombarded last night or a month ago. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Totally agree, bombardments not useful like that. If people want to see historical bombardments they can read the page? Maearacauaray (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, if there's renewed bombardment, we just turn the colour back on but stick to one symbol, either red/orange or gray. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawals vs Counteroffensives/Counterattacks
We should have separate arrows for withdrawals and counteroffensives for both sides, so that way it's easier to tell. Also, some people might think that, in northern Ukraine, there's some large successful counteroffensive. Dawsongfg (talk)`
Not this again, the Russians will simply claim, that all their retreats were withdrawals and that all withdrawals of Ukrainian forces were full panic retreats to Poland. These arrows simply show advances and not attacks, pegging or any other movement in Ukraine. And to hide the massive looses of the "withdrawals" in Northern Ukraine is kinda ignorant to the former Russian soldiers in these areas, too. ––2003:DF:A74B:1E33:C003:7B45:FB6:CD9712:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't support the idea. Trying to include everything leads to a very messy map. Keep it clear and if necessary explain more in legend and in text. --J. Sketter (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022
I am writing to report the map that shows the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The names of the cities that are written in English are transliterated from Ukrainian and are spelled correctly. However, the names of the cities that are spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet are spelled in Russian and not in Ukrainian!
Please change the spelling of those cities whose names are written in the Cyrillic alphabet from Russian to Ukrainian.
@188.163.232.130: The map started out in English, so the default names are in English. Several translations (systemLanguage) have been added to the map using SVG Translate. Those include Catalan, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Italian. You can see those languages in a render-this-image-in dropdown box on the file page. A Ukrainian translation has not been added to the file (I may add such a translation after fixing other issues with file). How the SVG map displays when loaded directly into a browser (not a PNG thumbnail) depends upon the user's preferred language selection. I suspect that most Ukrainians will set their preferences to prefer Ukrainian but accept Russian if Ukrainian is not available. Such a setting would display the map in Cyrillic Russian. Consequently, the Russian names should not be changed, but Ukrainian names may be added. Glrx (talk)
I don't know what sources you are looking at, but the two sources that are considered the best for making edits to the map, the ISW & Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, seem to agree that Rubizhne is currently under the control of Russian & LPR forces. To quote the ISW'S May 12 report "Russian forces made marginal gains to the north of Severodonetsk and have likely captured Rubizhne and Voevodivka." The detailed map also says that Rubizhne was captured by Russian/LPR forces on May 12th. Physeters✉09:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I will say though that the regular media seems split on whether the Russians fully control of the town or only most of it. I see that a discussion has just been started on the detailed map's talk page, so if that comes to the consensus that Rubizhne should be marked as contested, I will change it back to contested on this map. Physeters✉09:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I honestly believe that such changes should be done when it is confirmed, not when it is “likely”. Would you mind to revert back? You could always re-revert when it’s confirmed 37.203.10.2313:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Wait for official Ukrainian confirmation. It usually doesn't take long. Your source anyways says that Russians controlled almost all, not all, of the city by yesterday. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The official policy of this map is to use w:Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map as the only source for the control of settlements. (This is based on rules which were decided when mapping the w:Syrian civil war.) That template in turn uses Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which says that the city is Russian-occupied. If you would like to dispute that, please either discuss it at that page's talk page, or edit that page yourself, following the rules on the talk page (most importantly, that claims favourable to one side may only be used as a source if they are either (1) independently confirmed or (2) conceded by the side to which the claims are unfavourable). —AlphaMikeOmega (talk)01:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sad to see that after 3 months editors are staring not to care enough to update the map. It's understandable, but for a such a highly viewed topic, Wikipedia should compromise to give accurate information as rapidly as it is uncontroversial and factual. And it is factual that Rubizhne fell two weeks ago, so it should be marked as Russian held now. See Battle of Rubizhne at the English Wikipedia and the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, they both show Rubizhne fell to the Russian forces. Yesterday Lyman was also taken over by Russia, see Battle of Lyman (2022) and the template linked above. These aren't random villages but important towns that have been given good coverage on media, so please correct this as soon as possible. By the way, Voevodivka also fell [17]. There shouldn't be such a big salient to the east of Sievierodonetsk. Fighting in the outskirts of the city already started. That should be corrected too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I would have updated it myself today, but I was feeling very sick last night and just fell over when my regular commitments were done. I spent most of my free time before I fell ill yesterday trying to get the animated version of the map updated, which has been abandoned for over a month now. As for Rubizhne, I tried to set it as Russian controlled last week, but it kept starting a fight here on the talk page.(see Rubizhne discussion above) One question, when the ISW says that territory is "Claimed Russian control over Ukrainian Territory" should it be treated as Russian controlled or Ukrainian controlled? It seems that sometimes it's considered Russian controlled and others Ukrainian controlled. That salient you are talking about had been Ukrainian controlled until the 26th, when ISW changed it to "Claimed Russian control over Ukrainian Territory" Physeters✉09:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The Institute for the Study of War reports indications that not Ukrainian troops have left Azovstal as of May 18th. Donetsk People's Republic leader Pushilin claims that some high-ranking Ukrainian leaders and soldiers are still inside the plant and refuse to surrender. Russia continues to shell the remaining defenders. Bunnycube (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
also how can we understand that mariupol still stand or lost? there should be a sign near that of mariupol name in map that show mariupol is lost or still stand.... Modern primat (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you are asking if there is a way to tell if a city is controlled by Russia or Ukraine. If a settlement is marked with a Yellow circle, it is controlled by Ukraine. If it is marked with a Red circle, it is controlled by Russia. If it is marked with a red and yellow symbol, the settlement is not fully controlled by either side; it is being currently being fought over. Physeters✉15:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Every source states it's under full Russian control at least since 27-28th May (ISW for example). I can't really understand why it's "contested" only on Wikipedia's maps. 93.34.236.23408:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The person who changed it back said though that there where no independent sources saying that Russia had full control. Isn't the ISW as independent as it gets? Physeters✉09:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've been reading ISW daily reports since the start of the war, and I wouldn't say "independet", but (strongly) pro-Ukraine, so...
Furthermore, the problem is not that "there where no independent sources saying that Russia had full control", but that there is no single independent source saying the opposite. 93.34.236.23412:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
You are a victim of buggy software, dubious workarounds, and narrow standards. These problems have been around for years.
First, WMF does not directly serve SVG but rather converts the SVG to a PNG and serves that PNG. The conversion uses an outdated version of librsvg that does not handle hyphenated IETF language tags correctly. WMF's version of librsvg does not process language tags correctly. It treats zh-TW and zh-CN as equivalent. The rasterizer has been updated, but it will probably fail with Chinese languages. The rasterizer and the WMF software need to be fixed.
Second, because librsvg does not distinguish zh-TW and zh-CN, SVG Translate adopted a workaround that uses the non-standard IETF language tags. For zh-TW, SVG Translate uses zh_TW. Those nonstandard language tags let SVG Translate trick the buggy librsvg into displaying the Chinese text. However, those nonstandard language tags make the translations unusable everywhere else. SVG Translate is an application. It is not part of the core MediaWiki software. MediaWiki uses standard, hyphenated, language tags. MediaWiki has also become more intransigent: in many places, it will reject language tags that do no conform to its view of proper language tags. Consequently, the zh_TW language tag does not work in MediaWiki. SVG Translate has misled you.
Third, there are many ways to specify Chinese languages with IETF language tags. You used zh-TW. Taiwan has a preferred script of traditional Chinese characters. One could also use zh-Hant-TW. Under one set of matching rules, zh-TW and zh-Hant-TW are equivalent. However, SVG uses a simpler matching rule that does not make them equivalent. WMF sites use just two versions of Chinese: zh-Hans and zh-Hant; WMF does not distinguish regions such as Taiwan (TW), Hong Kong (HK), and mainland China (CN). So for WMF sites, those two IETF language tags are the ones to use. (WMF software is still broken; it will select zh-, but it will not distinguish the two scripts).
Fourth, SVG Translate only targets WMF sites, so it should not offer to translate to zh-TW. However, SVG Translate would still emit the nonstandard language codes zh_Hans and zh_Hant, so the code would still be unusable on WMF sites.
In the SVG source, I changed one systemLanguage attribute from zh_HANT to zh-HANT. That makes the title in the legend show up.
To fix it, I will have to edit all the Chinese language systemLanguage attributes.
I have changed the systemLanguage="zh_HANT" produced by SVG Translate to systemLanguage="zh-Hant". I did the same for zh_Tw.
I also deleted over 3000 duplicate Chinese translations. A bug in SVG Translate apparently adds another translation rather than overwriting an existing translation.
The Chinese version of this map should display on the zh.Wikipedia by default. The Chinese wiki should default the language tag to zh, and that language tag will select either the zh-TW or zh-Hant translations (which ever comes first in the switch element).
To display the Chinese version on other wikis (such as Commons), add |lang=zh to the inclusion:
[[File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg|lang=zh|...]]
If someone adds simplified Chinese (zh-Hans) translations, then the file will display with a mixture of traditional and simplified Chinese. That behavior is due to software bugs and limitations. Currently, MediaWiki cannot explicitly display just zh-Hant.
When the map is loaded into your browser, then your browser preferences should choose which language is displayed. If the preferences are set properly, a modern browser will display only one language.
SVG Translate may or may not recognize the zh-TW and zh-Hant translations. Even if it does recognize them, it will add new translations that use an incorrect language tag.
The first four clauses have identifiers that look like they are from SVG Translate. The next nine clauses do not follow that pattern. Glrx (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Glrx I noticed that you had removed all of the duplicate clauses a few days ago, but it appears that they have come back. I believe SVG Translate regenerated them. Physeters✉16:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I removed over 3000 duplicated translations (there are over 1100 duplicate translations right now). I also changed the systemLanguage attributes so Chinese would display on the Chinese Wikipedia (e.g., zh_Hant → zh-Hant). Yes, SVG Translate is regenerating the duplicate clauses. The program has a horrible bug, and each time it runs, it may double the number of duplicated tags. I pointed out the doubling mechanism in Phab:T271000. WMF's Community Tech is the group that updated SVG Translate a couple years ago. The issue has been placed on one of Community Tech's sprint boards. Cross your fingers and hope that Community Tech fixes SVG Translate soon.
A crude tool can repair the map. It also discovers several mistranslated dates (currently there are 16 bad dates). I'm tempted to automatically insert dates for all current languages. That step would cut down on the number of invocations of SVG Translate because editors would not need to run SVG Translate when a new date is added.
I'm tempted to create some Inkscape layers. Layers would impose some consistency but may confuse the Inkscape editors who update the map. I'm reluctant because I cannot test the result with Inkscape.
If I am not mistaken, the map did have layers at one point, but about a month ago, they were removed for an unknown reason. Physeters✉19:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Northwest Kherson [2 June]
Yesterday on 2 June, Ukraine claimed to have made a 8km or 5 mile push into Russian controlled territory in the north and northwestern Kherson region, liberting around 20 settlements (no cities). This information was announced by the Kherson Regional Military Administration head Gennady Laguta on a broadcast. Can this information be put on to the map in someway? Because no cities were taken, maybe putting a small arrow with the caption [2 June] in the northwest Kherson region may be the way to go. Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a map showing what territories Ukraine took back? "North and northwestern Kherson Oblast" is not a specific enough location for me to be able to add the counteroffensive to the map. Physeters✉21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
You know, I really wish I could give you a better answer. There is very little mentions of the event I can find online besides what I mentioned above because there wasn't really a "city" taken. Sorry I can't provide you with more information, so I understand this really doesn't have a place to be added. Thank you for responding so quickly though, and for your contributions to keeping the map updated as a whole! 😃 --Johnson524 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnson524 You are welcome! I did a little research on the topic after I replied to you, and I believe that I have located the counteroffensive, and it is already on our map, most likely by mistake. After looking at the ISW's previous reports, I found that it shows an area that it purports to be the new Ukrainian counteroffensive you speak of. They show it on the west bank of the Inhulets River. This area has been shown as Ukrainian for some time on our map, probably as a failure to previously update it. So by matter of chance the map is already showing this counteroffensive. I will add a June 2nd marker in the next update, since I forgot to add it in the last one. Physeters✉00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
In the index, the explosion icon is listed as representing "Air and ground bombardments". This is unclear if the icons represent recent bombardments or all bombardments. If it's the former, the label should be changed to "Recent air and ground bombardments (last x days)", or if it's the latter, the label should be "Past air and ground bombardments". 9yz (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh whoops I thought you meant the one in Luhansk sorry didn't read properly. Rubizhne's marked on the map (as contested because Russia claims it's captured). Dawsongfg (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
For a while, the ISW had said that Ukraine had taken back the entire settlement of Marinka, which straddles the Ukraine/DPR border. However, within the last week, the ISW changed it to show that Ukraine had only taken back the parts of the town on the Ukrainian side. Physeters✉13:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Mark Hirske on the map
Hirske is not particularly less notable than Zolote, and as far as I know these were the only villages in the threat of being surrounded, so it would be good to mark both on the map. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a total mistake on my part. Back at the end of May, the ISW & detailed map both said that the areas in and around Zolote had been taken by the Russians. I added the date that the ISW gave and moved on. This turned out to be incorrect, and about a week and a half ago, I corrected Zolote's status but I forgot to remove the incorrect date. I will correct it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Physeters✉13:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Wrong data
The date are wrong on may places, Zolote it says falled on 23 May, but this is wrong was 23 June, are you manipulate dates to help russian invasion?
Like this places falled earlier, shame. 92.53.31.5019:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
For most settlements, dates aren't used to indicate when they're captured. The "23 May" is for the arrow. Also, why would we help a terrorists invasion? Dawsongfg (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, this was an honest mistake. Back at the end of May both of the maps sources incorrectly said that the areas in and around (and in the case of the detailed map, including) Zolote had fallen to the Russians. I corrected the city itself, but forgot to correct the date. Sorry for the error, I will fix it now. Physeters✉13:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against adding partisan activity to the map, however, the last time someone requested it, there was no consensus on whether partisans should be represented or not. Physeters✉16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will set Sievierodonetsk as Russian controlled when I update the map later today. Done! It's such big news that I decided to update it early. Physeters✉17:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Pryvillia and Novodruzhesk
Since these two and Lysychansk are the only 3 out of 37 cities to be NOT under LPR control in Lugansk Oblast, I ask to add them to the map. --M1911 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the May 29 label south of Lysychansk be red, not yellow? There's no Ukrainian advance shown on the map there, but there is a significant attempt by Russia to surround Lysychansk from the south. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The May 29th label is a leftover from when the Ukrainians recaptured Toshkivka on that date. The date marker has been left there because other date marks such as the Russian date marks in the northern part of Ukraine have not been removed even though Russia no longer controls that territory. Physeters✉02:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dawsongfg, there was one date label at Voznesensk. It was removed when the person updated the map to say Ukraine had retaken the area. As far as I can tell, it is the only date label that was removed when the territory changed hands. Physeters✉13:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Partial translations may be horrible, but I think a partial translation is better than no translation at all. Many volunteers have added translations to this file, and that effort suggests that partial translations have value. Editors can use SVG Translate to add more translations. Consider the default English text as a request to translate that text to the appropriate language.
I can translate all the dates using the JavaScript Intl.DateTimeFormat object. I occasionally use that object to check the translated dates for consistency.
I believe partisan activity should be added because it's, well, pretty damn major. Thoughts? (We'd need to make it not yellow, and add separate dates) Dawsongfg (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Organised partisan activity is, by definition, extremely difficult to define and even more difficult to represent on a map. Who can determine if a single "attack" against Russian occupants is an organized act of saboutage or just a mere manifestation of violent protest?
Furthermore, at the moment the main source for the so called partisan activity is the ISW. This map is alread - in my honest opionion - almost a copycat of ISW's one (in the last weeks almost every update is a "Updates per ISW"), so I would prefer to avoid reflecting it even more. 93.34.233.12605:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against representing partisans on the map, but partisans really don't control any territory, and like the IP guy said, partisan activity is hard to accurately represent. I like Super Dromaeosaurus' idea of using a symbol to represent them. It's fairly simple, it wouldn't make it look like the partisans control the whole area around Melitopol, and it would not distract much from the actual territorial control. Physeters✉13:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty speculative to alter the map as we know nothing about where exactly are these partisan forces operating. Maybe we could add a symbol next to the names of the cities and towns where partisan activity has been reported, like Kherson or Melitopol. It could be a simple fist like this [22]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The fundamental problem is the lack of reliable sources. The reporting will be incomplete, but adding the information to the map may give the impression of completeness. Omission is the simpler choice. Glrx (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a town Shehyni in Lviv region. But it named as Shehyril on Detailed map of RUSSO-UKRAINIAN WAR. Please rename it as Shehyni. Пан Хаунд (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Done! Sorry for saying "Shehyril" in the edit summary, but I can assure you that the misspelling has been corrected. Physeters✉19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There are five pink dots in Transdnistria without any label or other clear purpose. Why?
If we were to label cities outside Ukraine that would show up in the map, then we should label every city that is in the map area, which includes the entirety of Moldova, almost all Romania, large parts of Russia, Poland and Belarus and even a few corners of Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Servia. So, there is simply no reason to just add five unlabeled pink dots in Transdnistria as if they had any merit to be on it. Thus, I suggest to just get rid of these pink dots, they serve no purpose. 2804:431:C7CE:585B:2D56:25EA:7AF0:93A508:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dawsongfg: I second JoKalliauer's comment. The map is complicated, and Inkscape will lead unsuspecting users down the garden path. I do not think there is a quick explanation of how to edit the file with Inkscape.
Inkscape offers almost no help with multilingual files, so users are easily misled. One common problem is replacing some text with new text. That's a pretty simple operation, but it may delete all the translations of the original text. For another example, it seems straightforward to copy some text (say "3 May") to a new location and then edit that text to a new value (say "5 June"). Everything looks right on the screen, but the result is confused. When other languages are displayed, they will show a translation of the original "3 May" rather than a translation of the new "5 June". Consequently, text should not be replaced or copied.
Even more bizarre Inkscape problems arise. Sometimes Inkscape has tricked users into inserting graphics inside of what should be a text-only switch body. Consequently, only one of the text or the graphic will appear on screen. Confused users reinsert the missing graphics and produce a mess.
Editing the file requires knowing the underlying representation and how to handle that representation. There are basic graphics, groups, copies, symbols, and clones. Each of those may need different handling. That means selecting an object, discovering what it is, and then figuring out what to do with it. Should it be copied, cloned, original-cloned, or inserted? In addition, editing groups or symbols can be involved.
This map is both complicated and fragile, so it requires significant Inkscape skills.
I think everybody I know that edits multilingual files can do some basic changes in the Text-Editor.
If you just edit Text you could use https://svgtranslate.toolforge.org/ but be aware most files (currently also this) are adapted to work with svgtranslate, however svgtranslate has some bugs and might break some SVGs.
If you just want to edit everything except the text you might be able to use Inkscape, but that's a dangerous option. Where it is very likely that you break something and if it's small it might get more derivatives and repairing will get difficult. That's the reason why I think you really have to dig deep to learn SVG-editing in text-Editor.
Liubymivka is northern Kherson Oblast has been shown as if there was a battle there since March I think. That's not the case. Please remove the fighting icon and add a common, red-colored one to show it's still under Russian occupation.
And perhaps add Marinka and Niu York too. Those and Avdiivka form an important line of defense below the Soledar-Siversk-Bakhmut-Kramatorsk-Sloviansk agglomeration. Marinka also has a Wikipedia article for its battle [23], while no fighting occurred in Niu York. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Done! As to Bilohorivka, there simply is not enough room in that area to add another settlement. Anyway, most sources say that all of Luhansk Oblast is under Russian control. The article doesn't even confirm what the two villages are, it only gives speculation. Physeters✉20:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
There are other articles that confirm ukrainian control over bilohorivka too.
The sources that said all of luhansk was under russian control was from july 3rd while these are newer Peanut funi xd (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a link to any of these? In the mean time, I'll see if there is any possible way to fit Bilohorivka. Nevermind, I've found sources confirming the town is contested. I've squeezed in Bilohorivka. (now there really is no more room in that area)--Physeters✉17:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
while you're at it can you put ternova as russian controlled (keep rubizhne in kharkiv though) bc there's no report of ukraine holding it (sorry if that seemed like boss or something) Dawsongfg (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any sources showing that Russia definitively controls Ternova? I would need a few very good sources to overcome the detailed map, which is the main source I am following and trumps the ISW. (though it may not look like it judging by the edit summaries over the past few weeks) By the way, there was nothing wrong with your tone. Physeters✉08:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the spelling of Pisky and corrected the status of Huiliapole and Orikhiv. Thank you for pointing these out! As to Mazanivka and Dmytrivka, they are already represented as Ukrainian controlled on the map, though they are not labeled. However, I could not find any text errors around Lozove in Kherson Oblast. Could you please describe the error? That way I might be able to identify it. Physeters✉07:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your interest in improving this map! I've looked through these links, which all source the British Defence Intelligence Agency. The articles do say that Russians have entered Bakhmut, but their common source, the BDIA, does not. The specific report I assume they are sourcing, https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1556876034443714563/photo/1 , only says that Russians have gotten closer to the town. the other sources I follow, the Russo Ukrainian War detailed map and the ISW, both say the same. I wonder if the mistake comes from a mistranslation, since I cannot find anyone else other than these Arabic sources saying the Russians entered Bakhmut. Physeters✉23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The war will not end in the next weeks. There are many arrows and dotted lines on the map and it's getting more and more hard to read and understand. I think there should be different maps for different parts of the war. The first map should be for the weeks of the Russian Invasion in February and March. The second Map shold be for the Ukrainian advances at the end of March and later and maybe there could be a third map for the current events. Perhaps on the current map could be one dotted line for the maximum advances in the past. 2A00:6020:4903:3100:D1F6:84F1:10B0:13C812:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
If you mean like the animated map, I don't think so. As far as I know, there in no limit for svg size on commons. Physeters✉13:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
zoom in
During the phase 2 russia did not attack or made gains other then south-east(novorossiya) so i think we should zoom in to the novorossiya region because it would be pointless to show areas where theres nothing happening Peanut funi xd (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
This map shows the whole invasion. While Russia has only advanced in the southeast in recent weeks, they did previously advance, and then retreat, from the north. There has also been some information that Belarus might attempt an invasion from the north. However, it could be possible to make a separate file that just shows the southeast. Physeters✉23:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
on the partisan activity so let's do it again or something.
Reasoning: This map is basically a copy of the ISW map but with arrows. It makes sense to add partisan activity.
Also on the military engagements page it specifies "Military situation in Ukraine"
I believe that partisan warfare is more than enough to contribute to any military situation, ESPECIALLY if they heavily change the situation on frontlines. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The map is not an exact copy of the ISW, and it has some differences when comparing the control of certain cities, but it is very similar. I wish it was not as close to the ISW map as it is, but other good sources have really dried up, besides the detailed map. As I have said before to adding Partisan Activity, I am not against it, but we would need to come up with a decent symbol to represent it. Partisan activity is also very hard to confirm, so many attacks may be mislabeled as partisan activity when they were not, or vice versa. Physeters✉13:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
We could go off of CLAIMED partisan activity. Don't know what we'd have for a symbol. Somebody said the BLM logo one. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
For whatever reason, that was how it was originally drawn back in February. I have no idea why, as I was not actively updating the file at that time (though I have been following closely since the beginning of the invasion). Physeters✉05:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
ISW has been reporting since August 19th that Russian forces have been claiming to have seized Pavlika and Vodiane, which are north of Vuhledar – yet the map still shows a Ukrainian counteroffensive that pushed them south of Vuhledar, which as far as I can tell never actually happened. The area has been pretty consistently painted as "claimed Russian offensive" without any news of Ukrainian counter offensive. ISW's latest report confirms this.47.20.177.16315:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the Russian translations seem to be using the old city names (such as Torez instead of Chystiakove) I don't know why this is, but I'm guessing it must have something to do with them being controlled by the DNR/LNR. As for Bakhmut, the name change did actually succeed, so I have changed the translation to reflect this. Physeters✉19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
ISW Russian Claims
I feel like russian claims of territory captured from ISW should be excluded, as they are known for lying more often than not, and it is best to wait until we have confirmation from other sources. 72.229.242.3623:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel the same way, and personally believe they should be shown as Ukrainian-controlled. However, they were included as Russian-controlled before I started editing the map, so I have continued to show them as such. It would be nice to get consensus on whether or not to include these areas as Russian-controlled or Ukrainian-controlled, but interest in this file has almost completely died out. Physeters✉06:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
True, but Wikipedia works on consensus, the opinion of all, not just mine. When I started, ISW Russian claimed control areas were shown as Russian controlled on the map, and I continued doing so, even though I disagreed with it. Since changing all of those areas to Ukrainian controlled would significantly change the current frontlines, I would need consensus to change them. Unfortunately as I said previous, interest in this file has almost entirely died, so it is unlikely we will hear the opinions of anyone else.Physeters✉19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I might remove the ones right on the Mykolaiv/Kherson border, considering they have only been there a day or two, and like you've said they are the most likely to be untrue. Physeters✉20:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we should really be talking about simplifying the map, not added new colors to it. By the way @Dawsongfg, how do you feel we should display the "Claimed Russian Control" areas? As Russian, or Ukrainian? Physeters✉01:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dawsongfg the ISW has a territory classification called "Claimed Russian Control over Ukrainian Territory". These areas are places Russian forces claim to control, but the ISW can't independently verify their status. Currently most of them are shown on this map as Russian controlled, but I and the IP guy above believe they should be shown as Ukrainian controlled. What do you think? Physeters✉01:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
To stay neutral and unbiased we should add a new color.
If you we show it ukrainian or russian we are biased
This is war both can lie no one should be trusted شادي (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yilku1: Not all of the cities have been translated to Chinese. The SVG does not know the Chinese names of cities unless someone adds them. If it does not have a Chinese translation, it will display the English name of the city. You can add translations using SVG Translate:
There are many varieties of Chinese, for example zh-Hans, zh-Hant, zh-CN, zh-TW. Unfortunately, Wikimedia Foundation software does not do a good job of distinguishing those varieties. It will display the first variety it finds.
On the file's main page, go down right below the image. You will see a "Render this image in English" pull-down menu. Click on the word English and you will see the list of languages the file can be rendered in. Select one and press go. The file will now be be rendered in that language. Physeters✉00:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Add more towns
I think we should include some localities in the map after the start of this counteroffensive. In Kherson Oblast, Sukhoy Stavok should be added; in Donetsk Oblast, Ozerne and Yampil (leads to Lyman I think); in Kharkiv Oblast, Volokhiv Yar (its liberation was already relevant as it cut a highway connecting Russia to Izium), Shevchenkove. I am also a bit surprised not to see Oleksandrivka in Kherson Oblast. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost all of the inscriptions in the Ukrainian counteroffensive zone in Kharkiv Oblast are shifted and out of place, unlike the English version of the map: [24]. How can it be fixed? Vanyka-slovanyka (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
This happens when someone (who is usually using a program like inkscape) tries to move a text element, but fails to take all of the svgtranslate elements with it. I will get to work on fixing it now. Physeters✉18:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Add some russian towns and major lines of circulations
With the russians backing down on their borders and the recent explosions in various russian cities close to Ukraine, I think it would be better to include the border cities with Russia, major roads and railroads, and bombed cities like Belgorod and Rostov on Don. Larrayal (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Kherson recaptured?
I found some news stating that Kherson has been recaptured by Ukrainian forces, or that at least, the city is now contested. However, I couldn't find a convincing source for that. Does somebody have a clearer information about this issue? 2804:431:C7CF:E164:A893:7941:B08E:46DD00:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the colors should be changed to RED for Ukrainian govt control and GREEN/GRAY for militant/terrorist/rebel control, in line with many other political/military situation map such as the Syrian civil war, Yemeni civil war, Ethiopian conflict and so on. 152.130.9.7415:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
In the map, there is a potentially crucial railway line missing which might play a significant role in supplying Russian troops from the north. Is starts in the Russian town Valuyki and ends in Luhansk / Stanytsia Luhanska.
![05:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg/Archive_3#c-Mfb-2022-04-16T05:53:00.000Z-"present"_in_image){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Testmap_war_Ukraine_-_Colourblind_friendly.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![14:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg/Archive_3#c-Super_Dromaeosaurus-2022-04-23T14:09:00.000Z-"Avdiyvka"){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fist_.svg){kind=link}
Oppose The fundamental problem is the lack of reliable sources. The reporting will be incomplete, but adding the information to the map may give the impression of completeness. Omission is the simpler choice. Glrx (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done! The errors should be fixed now Vanyka-slovanyka. Physeters✉ 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
