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.
why there's no arabic version of the template, too many villages and military bases no one can understand the name except if it was written in arabic, like (bani masar,mhalli) if an arab visitor search that names on google search he can't find any results because it's unknown in english countries But when i try to search the name in arabic there is alot of results will show up because it's yemeni places.
also this war is on arabic country it's rare to find english visitors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.208.151.141 (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi I can help you to get the correct Arabic and local names
there seems to be several points where there were unproved editing, particularly marking bab el mandeb houthis and marking houthis some points in sana'a province who were part of the pro hadi push towards nihm --78.192.17.51 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
NAJRAN
the change of najran from saudi to saudi houthi wasn't sourced, i didn't have any news of that in any english or french language newspapers and that's a pretty big deal, might you source it please78.192.17.51 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It was actually a bit different: The town was marked as contested before and then marked as Saudi-held without citing a source. The last edit was only a revert.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
since when is najran marked contested, i don't think i saw it, i only saw a file that had to be downloaded for about a week and before it was marked as saudi held, was the change from saudi to contested sourced and how old is it?78.192.17.51 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Arhab
@K!lluminati: please go in your talk page. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Y Was observed. K!lluminati (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not. That article was published almost 2 weeks before the Yemeni Government recaptured the city during the Battle of Mukalla (2016). LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Gotta at least provide the source MilitaryMaps.info uses. Nuke (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Yakla village
Can someone please add the Yakla village, the site of the US's Yakla raid? The location of the village is pinpointed on the map in the link provided.[1] If no one adds the village, then I will try to add it in about 2 weeks. (It is probably under Houthi control.) Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
not likely at all to be houthi controlled, most likely is aqap, secod most likely is tribal forces allied to hadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.180.79 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not under AQAP control right now. It's smack right in the middle of Houthi territory, so either 1) the Houthis control Yakla or 2) the entire area around Yakla is held by Pro-Hadi forces and this map module is wrong. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good example for why we should not add towns on the map without a source specifying who controls them. Tradediatalk 22:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the Southern Transitional Council talk page
There is an ongoing RfC titled "Existence and nature of the Southern Transitional Council" at Talk:Southern Transitional Council#RfC: Existence and Nature of the Southern Transitional Council. This is relevant to this module and template because the scope of it includes whether or not the STC is effectively occupying territory in Yemen--which has logical implications for the map. Nuke (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Should "pro-Saleh" be moved to the Hadi government's coloring, for the time being, given there are currently no more color icons to use for the map? Nuke (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: an orange icon have been added but an orange gif does not exist. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
With Salehs death I think we should change the colour to red now. Other thoughts?--Ermanarich (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this sounds alright; based on currently available sources, they do not seem to currently be in conflict with Hadi forces. Nuke (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It does seem that pro-Saleh and pro-Hadi forces have clashed since Hadi's death. Nuke (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It is an old article who has been publish in November 2017.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Upon second inspection, October. I misread it "December 7" somehow by mistake. Your source is more recent. That should work. Nuke (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ermanarich and NuclearWizard: I have reverted that edit by NightShadeAEB because no source that Houthi have retaken GPC's territory outside Sana'a in Bayda. Report said that they have joined Hadi forces. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And I'm gonna revert it back. Post a reliable source that al Bayda is not under Houthi control at the moment or stop reverting. NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB: I'm gonna to revert again. Post a reliable source that Houthi have retaken Bayda. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard:But the problem is that the governorate of Bayda is vast. And we do not know if these reinforcements are in the south or in the center of Bayda. I think we must keep the orange.--Panam2014 (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: I'm not really sure how to respond. It could be to defend the entire governorate, I guess, but while the reinforcements were coming from outside of the governorate of al-Bayda, it would be a really imprecise location if they were referring to a more northwestern region of the governorate, and certainly there should be some news relating to how there's an offensive going north of Bayda if there isn't a battle occurring in the city or in that region. That said, I have not found any sources for pro-Hadi forces controlling any location that is currently marked orange. Nuke (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard:In fact, the pro-Saleh alliance with Hadi is just a project and it has not started to materialize in Al Hudaydah. At the latest news, the family of Saleh in the United Arab Emirates down through Aden. That's why putting in orange makes it possible to freeze the conflict. Finally, there must be a source that the Houthis have these areas of resistance, in the same way that we had sources for Sanaa. And I have found maps who show that pro-Hadi forces controlls southern Bayda. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: I'm not sure if the first thing you mentioned is relevant but cite it anyway. We do need sources, and I've presented the best we've got...but I suppose you are correct. The source I presented is insufficient. They did not state who the Houthis are fighting, and they stated that this was done to assist in the rescue efforts for the kotel north of Mocha...in other words, given they did not specify who the Houthis were fighting in Bayda, and they did not specify who controls Bayda despite stating the Houthis were sending reinforcements there...They may be referring to the Houthis as sending "reinforcements" to for infighting infighting pro-Saleh (in other words, "Houthi") forces, who a pro-Hadi source would not want to state is still anti-Hadi at the moment due to the fact that they are trying to convince them to accede to their side of the conflict. In other words, it is possible that they are not reinforcing anyone, despite being called reinforcements by a pro-UAE source, but being deployed to fight against those who they are supposedly "reinforcing". Nuke (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: did you support that we should keep the module with orange until the situation will be clarified ? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Yes. That is the obvious conclusion when the sources are this vague and can imply three different conclusions, with the third being Hadi control. Nuke (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Panam2014 Pro-Hadi sources are literally celebrating the fact that liberating Baihan is their gateway to al Bayda. You have not given me a source that says al Bayda is not under Houthi control, when being under Houthi control is the default - a claim that Saleh forces took it, if not substantiated after a while, has to be discarded. Saleh forces may have controlled it for a few hours/days as social media reports indicated, but I don't see any videos of Saleh loyalists in al Bayda city claiming they control it.
Usually, the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. As you are trying to prove that Houthis lost control over al Bayda, it should not be the job of others to do the research in your place. [2][3][4][5] Pro-Hadi sources are talking about the impending liberation of al Bayda, or the liberation of the first villages inside Bayda governorate administrative borders.[6]
Here are the facts:
1. Houthis have established control over Bayda since 2015.
2. Unconfirmed reports state that pro-Saleh forces took over al Bayda on December 3, 2017.
3. Pro-Saleh uprising was crushed all over Yemen, without any marked territorial changes.
4. There were barely any sources reporting on the rout of Saleh forces from places like Sanaa and Dhammar, as the media was preoccupied with his death.
5. We did not receive further information on Bayda; no final confirmation Saleh forces ever took it, let alone held it without media attention for 23 days.
6. Pro-Hadi forces are discussing the liberation of Baihan and Bayda from Houthis casually without so much as a mention of Saleh forces.
In conclusion, you had zero grounds not to fix your mistake three weeks ago, much less to revert me after I belatedly fixed it. This makes the map inaccurate, unreadable, and unusable. Please refrain from such unilateral changes to the status quo in the future.NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact [7] explicitly reports that Houthi forces retreated from the outskirts of al Bayda to al Bayda city.NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB: like to NuclearWizard the rules said that the user who would change the module must provide a sorce to change it. So, the two sources who has been provided does not talk about the areas who has been retaken. Any source have been issued that "Houthi have retaken Bayda areas". So there are source for Hajjah and Sana'a areas. And for the new changes, we should replace the green/orange by the red for "Bayda Outsirk" Please refrain from such unilateral changes to the status quo in the future. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Sources came out stating that the pro-Hadi/pro-Saudi forces did not enter al-Bayda gov until after the Houthi defeat at Beihan. Pro-Houthi source citing the first Hadi govt gain in al-Bayda governorate This implies pro-Saleh forces did not concede any of the al-Bayda governorate to the Hadi govt before collapsing militarily. Nuke (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: so what does it mean ? Saleh forces have joined Hadi forces or they have been expelled from Bayda ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Neither. The Houthis control almost all of the al-Bayda governorate, with the exception of a point in the Nu'man district. I don't know the coordinates of the Nu'man district, so I can't really add it myself. Nuke (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Dunno why you think copying and pasting my words and throwing them back at me verbatim is cute. You are pretending the edit based on unconfirmed, I repeat, UNCONFIRMED reports that Houthis lost Bayda is not *itself* an edit that required substantiation, which you have failed to provide me with three times now. I have elaborated my line of argument and you have not responded to any of it, except to the bit about Hajjah and Sanaa. If you had a source, fine, then show me your source that Dhammar, Mahwit, or the countryside of Ibb was cleared of Saleh-GPC forces. You were wrong, you defended an unsourced edit for three weeks and damaged the reputation of the map as a result. Accept this and don't do it again. Next time when I ask you for a source, provide one and don't vandalize. I was reverting a poorly sourced edit that has become obviously outdated at best and discredited at worst; the onus was not on me to prove it wrong, but on you to prove it right. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB: The words you have addressed to me are perfectly yours. For the rest, to change a position, you must provide a source that has changed hands and not the other way around. So I ask you to give the sources for these positions in particular. Finally, stop your unfounded accusations of vandalism. The sources do not speak of "unconfirmed". Accept this and don't do it again. So a few days ago, I was right to make these changes. But in view of the new sources, it is clear that the Houthis have taken over all the districts except one. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Do you understand what a "reliable source" is? And I just read the edit history, I was not the only one who was trying to correct this. I can't help but notice you cannot bother to take two minutes to research this but are more than eager to revert those of us who eagerly provided sources. [8][9][10][11][12][13] In all this edit warring not one source has been posited to defend an aberration to the status quo. This map is more or less hijacked by two users engaged in POV pushing at the expense of accuracy. You say you were right "a few days ago". Are you telling me Saleh loyalists controlled al Bayda for 20+ days? I didn't initially provide a source because I thought what I was doing was fairly routine and uncontroversial, restoring the map to the status quo after hyped up reports of a Saleh uprising fading into obscurity. You had no reason to keep al Bayda Saleh held after his forces collapsed nation wide. And please quit with the "no u" replies, I'm trying to maintain a topical discussion here as relates to the edits. I hope @Tradedia: weighs in on this. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB: I know exactly what a reliable source is. On the other hand, you saw that the information was false. For the rest, I'm sure you do not know what a reliable source is, and it's not surprising from a new contributor. For the rest, whether it's me or NuclearWizard, we had every reason to make these changes. Finally, do not change the reality, the IP address had provided a source on the positions in question, the source does not say it. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Actually I've been a regular contributor of the Syria map, and over there we do not consider Al Masdar to be a reliable source. I do not contribute often, but I generally check the map frequently and only intervene when there's a massive disruptive mistake, such as getting a whole governorate wrong. Due to the less notable nature of the Yemen map, it appears you mostly edit the map on your own which has resulted in a case of WP:OWN. You are arguing ad hominem against me as a "new contributor", whereas I could have done the same to you considering I never saw you on the Syria map for the past few years yet I did not because seniority is irrelevant as long as your contributions are positive. I find it troubling how half of what you say is personalization, and you always ignore what I ask. Let me repeat myself. Do you or do you not believe Saleh-GPC forces held al Bayda for over 20 days? NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB: I contribute elsewhere, not you. An experienced contributor would never have made fanciful accusations of vandalism. For the rest, Yemen is not Syria and Masdar is used when it allows to sour positions of beleaguered Masdar does not support. For the rest, yes that's right, the news of the recovery of Bayda by the Houthis have arrived only now. Panam2014 (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Another pointless personalization.
"For the rest, yes that's right, the news of the recovery of Bayda by the Houthis have arrived only now."
What? So GPC forces were collectively routed the first week of December, there was no final confirmation on the fact that Houthis were no longer in al Bayda, and since the Baihan offensive began Hadi forces have discussed al Bayda as their next target, yet you want me to believe GPC controlled al Bayda for 20 days? NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Change your behavior if you do not want to be criticized on it. For Bayda, again, there is no evidence on that. For the other provinces, there are sources on the resumption of territory by the Houthis. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Jawf & Nihm
Apparently a border town between Saudi Arabia & Yemen has been liberated by Hadi forces in the Jawf Governorate. Furthermore, according to many pro-hadi sources, that the Nihm District has been fully liberated. [14] I don't know how much we can consider as 100% truthful as the reports have been refuted by the Houthi side and no picture/videos (to the best of my knowledge) have been shown. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a pro-Hadi source to me; what's the Houthi claim? If it's that the town is contested, I don't think this should be a controversial claim. If one of claiming complete conquest and the other is claiming that it's not even contested and under full Houthi control, I'm not sure. Nuke (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: Well that’s the problem when I looked to see if there was a dot for the town (name of town is here [15]) there was nothing there, and when I searched the town up on google maps, it’s in deep Houthi-held area. [16] Whereas, Houthis are not even acknowledging such an attack even took place and are stating they launched a major attack of their own, on Hadi forces in Taiz and Jawf and “inflicted heavy losses”. [17] Also I don’t really know if we can claim with certainty that Nihm has been fully liberated by Hadi forces since they have made such claims in the past about this matter. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add Yatma in al Jawf to the map, it has been recently controlled by Hadi Forces, also Khanjar camp is under hadi forces control according to the below
Not done: There is currently a discussion above about the matter, if you would like to give your point of view. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Too many colors on this map
The map has too many colors/factions (8). This makes it too complicated for our viewers. They will get lost with all the factions. This is an encyclopedia, and we should give a quick idea of what is happening to viewers who are not following closely the conflict. The Syria map has 5 colors and soon maybe 4 if ISIL is completely wiped out. So we need to reduce the number of colors on the map. As a rule of thumb, we should not have a color that applies to less than 10 objects. For example, my impression is that now, pro-Saleh forces are on the Hadi side. So we should just make them red for now (we can change them later if things change). Also, we should avoid the blue (local, non-aligned forces) by making them in the color of the faction they are closest to. From the section above this one, it seems that the control of “Balhaf” is not clear. So let’s just make the blue towns red. Let’s stick with the KISS principle. Tradediatalk 06:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) On a 2nd thought, let’s make the orange towns green. From a few days ago, source talks about how pro-Hadi will liberate Bayda, so it seems that Bayda city is under Houthis otherwise pro-Hadi would not be talking the way they are talking. Also, another pro-Hadi source from a few days ago talks about how "After-liberation-of-Shabwa-Yemeni-army-moves-into-Bayda".If Bayda city was lost by Houthis, it would be a big deal and we would have reporting from it with vids, pics, etc. I think that at this point, pro-Saleh forces are a non-factor & seem to not be able to survive his death. Also, there are more sources going in the direction of what I have written including from just today: [18]. Tradediatalk 14:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tradedia: There's already a huge debate going on in another section of this page about the pro-Saleh removal. Scroll up. Nuke (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Pro-Hadi advance in Bayda province@Nuke: Ok. Well it seems like that section has degenerated into personal attacks & the 2 participants are entrenched in their positions & will not change their mind lol. So this leaves you & me. How about we decide this & I would think the other 2 would not revert whatever we decide?
I found another relevant pro-Hadi source: al-Arabiya in Arabic from 25 dec says that pro-Hadi forces have just “liberated” their 3rd district in Bayda province: Al Malagim District (on our map in green). This came after “liberating” their 1st district (Na'man District, on our map contested) & their 2nd district (Natea District, not on our map). They include a map which I copy here with my annotation added for the 3 “liberated” districts in order of liberation. I also listened to many (pro-Hadi) videos on the situation in Bayda. Not one of them mentions pro-Saleh troops. And it is now clear in my mind that Hadi troops only control at most the 3 districts above in bayda province. I also spied on our competitors (online maps) that i could find in a quick search: [19] & [20]. They both have our “orange towns” as Houthi-held.
Your last sentence in the other section was: “The Houthis control almost all of the al-Bayda governorate, with the exception of a point in the Nu'man district. I don't know the coordinates of the Nu'man district, so I can't really add it myself.” What is your position about the “orange towns” as of now? Tradediatalk 05:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tradedia: I think that, at very least, al-Bayda was never confirmed to be a pro-Saleh forces controlled town, so it should be marked as Houthi-controlled. Furthermore, it really seems they're all green now, simply due to the fact that Saleh's attempt to seize power in northern Yemen from the Houthis has failed, and there is no news about loyalists continuing to hold it--quite the contrary, in fact, as stated above. Nuke (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nuke: Sounds good. So let’s make the “orange towns” green. Also, how about we turn Na'man District from contested to red (1st district pro-Hadi media claim to take)? Also, add Natea District contested (2nd district pro-Hadi media claim to take)? Also, turn Al Malagim District from green to contested (3rd district pro-Hadi media claim to take)? From my quick search, I didn’t find reliable or pro-Houthis media talking about the situation in Bayda. So we might have to map the Bayda campaign by only using pro-Hadi media & discounting what they say (if they say contested, we do nothing; if they say they took it, we put contested; if they move to attack next town, we put previous one as taken…)? Tradediatalk 11:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tradedia: I don't know about creating any sort of like, little special system or something for determining how much the pro-Hadi claims are legitimate are not yet, but in regards to the Na'man district, the claim seems sound, while the deeper districts sound a bit far to penetrate into the Houthi frontlines without consistent reminders in media articles about the offensive there, as has occurred in Khokha, where there's been stuff like the STC leader visiting the city and so on. Nuke (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nuke: Sounds good. Let's then make Na'man district green and leave the others alone. Tradediatalk 16:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Strongly oppose
For the map of the Middle East, it is enough to put in legend that red refers to governments and green to rebels. The Yemeni conflict does not look like even in the belligerents to a Sunni-Shiite, Iran-Saudi Arabia war on the ground. And there are no KSA in Syria. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not bring that dispute into a second section, Panam. Nuke (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Balhaf blue colour
What was the source used for Balhaf being coloured blue? Hard to imagine it is still the case. NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the source, if I recall correctly. As it doesn't specify who controls Balhaf exactly, we really just need a better source. Nuke (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Lets just make it red (see section below this one). Tradediatalk 06:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
It's more likely to belong in the yellow given the source information, but if the two are merged in STC RfC then there would be no such conflict. Nuke (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I just contributed a couple changes to the map to get rid of the blue color, since all blue factions are apparently UAE-backed. I couldn't fit the links onto the commit description.
What is the source Yakhtul is under Houthi control? Is there a single video of Houthis in there? Now Hadi loyalists claim they captured the Hamli-Hays road, which would imply 1. Yakhtul is besieged or 2. Yakhtul was never held by the Houthis. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't think it is under Houthi control, because they were never attacking Houthi positions from the Sea, so logically speaking it has fallen. (Especially when areas that are 15-20 km, up north are under Hadi control) Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
AQAP/ISIL Merger
Since it has been pointed out to us that they're way to many factions in the YCW Module I propose that ISIL is merged onto AQAP since it's clear that AQAP's presence is much larger and stronger than ISIL. Furthermore, I believe that we should use the AQAP's color, because they're way more dots for AQAP, secondly Grey is used by most other Civil war modules to represent terrorist organizations. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. ISIL and Al-Qaeda are not rival groups. ISIL is always represented by black. I din’t see any problem with the number of factions. Any change would be an oversimplification. I also can’t help but notice that this change was made without discussion. I know that I’m the first to reply to this suggestion, and it has been over a week (I would have replied sooner had I been aware), but I feel that such major changes should not be made without some discussion amongst editors. I think this change should be reverted to allow proper time for discussion. Anasaitis (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, if you scroll up you'll see that a thread was posted (On December 26, 2017) stating an RFC was being held in the STC's talk page, in which matters revolving around the YCW Map were being discussed. Furthermore, an uninvolved editor made the suggestion that the amount of belligerents was way to much. All editors came to an agreement that to some extent this statement was correct. Furthermore, I made this thread about a week and half ago to make sure that no other contributing editors to this module objected to the matter. Also I recommend that you go to the module's edit history you'll see that no objections or reverts were made on such topic, in fact only tweaks were made on this matter further acknowledging that such merger had to be made. Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Strongly oppose for reverting. ISIL/AQAP does not commit suicide or armed attack between themselve. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Saudi Arabian Army Color
Making The Saudi Army a dark green is confusing. Maybe they should be changed to Yellow, so people don't confuse them with the Houthis. 2602:306:32A6:37B0:14E4:10F9:325:3192 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The Turkish coup was a green/lime situation. It creates all sorts of issues for renderers. Agreed, green/lime is really bad combo. If they are used side by side, often icons are even SHARED, like factory or oilfield icons. (this makes it impossible to even tell the intent of the icon) 49.182.149.53 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems, above readability or clarity, the colouring scheme is designed to support the Enhanced Graphics Adapter, in case we get visitors from 1985. 49.182.149.53 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, instead of snide comments, will actually try to do something. Will attempt over the next days to set up a svg icon server that can automatically paint a full range of icons for these maps based on a colour code. That way when a new faction colour is introduced (purple, orange are starting to be used) a full range of map icons can be made available immediately, with some sort of convention for naming. It would be a fairly simple matter of uploading them after that. 49.182.149.53 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't you all people above have a slight sense of logic.
Saudi color should be dark red.
If they were on the Houthi side, it would have been dark green.
Now, it's only confusing. Dark red = they support government troops, plain simple. DuckZz (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everyone above that dark green for Saudi Arabia is confusing. It should be changed. Tradediatalk 01:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tradedia: I am agree. Now, there are a consensus but there are not a dark red icon. Could you create it ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know how to create icons. Tradediatalk 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The color for the Saudis was changed to dark green on the premise that they are a Sunni-aligned government, as opposed to a Shi'ite-aligned government, in the greater scheme of things on the Module:Middle East conflicts detailed map (which has currently crashed due to probable over-loading). However, in terms of this specific Yemeni module, it can be a bit confusing, and I don't know exactly how it will all pan out. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: Some time ago me and user:Pbfreespace3proposed to fix this issue by switching Houthi color from lime to red and Sunni Yemeni forces from red to lime. It was discussed again once more in March 2016 with no progress. Maybe we should raise this idea once again.GreyShark (dibra) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess it could work, but it would present a dilemma in which we have to convert all Shi'ite-aligned groups to red and all Sunni-aligned groups to green. It's not the best match-up, given the common/current association of red = government, green = rebels, and so on, but if we want to display consistency among the maps, we could try. There would be plenty of objections, no doubt. (Governments that aren't exactly pro-Shi'ite or pro-Sunni would be much harder to determine in this case, in those instances, we should stick with red for government and green for rebels.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that Houthi Government forces in Sana'a are currently marked green, whereas the Sunni rebels centered in Aden are marked red?GreyShark (dibra) 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The Supreme Political Council, which the Houthis are a part of, (and which is not exclusively Shi'ite, by the way) is the government. Hadi had resigned, and later rebelled with the support of outside powers. The Houthis and their allies have controlled the capital city of the country for years now. By any reasonable definition, they're the government and the Hadi forces are the rebels. Nevertheless, I still have a problem with the light green color, regardless of which side it's used for. Either the dark green or light green should be replaced with something else, because having them both together is confusing. Kawada Kira (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to change Houthi color to Red, and pro-Hadi forces to lime green because people who are new to this conflict will see this map and think that Saudis are supporting Houthis instead of pro-Hadi forces, and because Houthis are Iranian-backed and the Middle East conflicts map has Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon Axis as Red, and Saudi/Turkey/Rebels Axis as Green/Dark Green, changing Houthis to Red and Hadi Forces to Lime Green while keeping Saudis Dark Green maintains consistency across the maps. Also, due to the fact that the Houthis control the capital of Sana'a for two years now, they are de facto the government of Yemen, with Hadi Forces being de facto rebels now.
Furthermore, the Saudi Arabia Warmap shows the Houthis in Red, which means the Middle East Warmap shows Red Houthis inside Saudi Arabia, and Lime Green Houthis inside Yemen, further adding confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3069:C470:60B1:52FB:98B4:9CD5 (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Houthis should use red, in accordance with their color on the Saudi Arabia warmap. However, I think it's fine, if we change the color of the Saudis in that warmap to red, to make the Houthis use their current color, so long as the Hadi government uses a color that matches the color of the Saudi forces. It's just about consistency. Nuke (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we compromise or reach a formal consensus or whatever soon? This is getting ridiculous. A majority do seem to agree that the color scheme at present does not suffice. Nuke (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we could make the new color scheme based on Green Team (KSA, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Hadi Government, Allies) versus Red Team (Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc), with US/NATO/Israel/Allies being Blue Team. Green Team Governments like KSA, Turkey, Jordan would be Dark Green, and Green Team-aligned rebels like FSA would be Lime Green. Red Team Governments like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon would be Red and Red Team-aligned NGOs like Hezbollah would be Orange. As for the Yemen warmap, Houthis would be Red, Houthi-aligned militias would be Orange, KSA/Hadi Gov't would be Dark Green, Saleh would be Lime Green, and everyone else would remain the same. This way, it wouldn't necessarily be about a Shiite vs Sunni conflict, but a larger Blue/Green Team versus Red Team conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3069:C470:5F6:DD8:B1E3:8706 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer to just swap the Houthi and Hadi colors, but Saudi Arabia could be the same color as Hadi's government and there wouldn't be too much of an issue--as for blue, that is reserved for local, unaffiliated forces, and the USA is not involved with its own faction, and supports the Hadi govt, so I think they'd just be red even if they were involved on Hadi's behalf. Also, your proposal does not include the STC, al-Qaeda, etc. Nuke (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
strongly oppose for the proposal to make Houthi in red and Hadi in green. Hadi government is the government, Saleh/Houthi are the rebels. We could create a dark red for Saudi army. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia's national flag is dark green, and as well, it matches up well with the Turkish color of the SCW detailed map--both are foreign countries which have sent their militaries into the subjects of the respective maps, and also there is a Saudi Arabia map where the Saudi government is also green, and all Shiite rebels -- including the Houthis -- are already colored red. Consistency must be attained. Nuke (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to throw in my lot and say that the core problem with the color scheme is Saudi Arabia is dark green and Houthis are lime green. This color pairing implies that Saudi Arabia is supporting the Houthis against the Hadi government. So the obvious solutions would be either to make Saudi Arabia red in both Yemen and Saudi Arabia warmaps while changing the Houthis/Shiite rebels in Saudi Arabia warmap to lime green, or to leave the Saudi Arabia warmap alone and simply change the Houthis to red and Hadi gov't to lime green. The latter option would clear up confusion to people who are new to this map by providing clarity of loyalties with minimal effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMapLurker (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard and TheMapLurker: I do not agree. Coherence is not to make the Sunnis in red and Shiites in green, the coherence is to make the rebels in green and the governments in red, as in Libya, where there are no Shiites as a political camp. And the module has never been related to the color of the flags. The only compromise I can accept is to put Saudi Arabia in red, for lack of dark red or dark green, but not the Yemeni government that does not have green in its flag, knowing that the Houthis, them, have green. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You talk about the module not being related to flag color, but then you propose leaving the Houthi/Hadi colors as they are because of the colors of their flags, while making Saudi Arabia red, despite the fact that their flag has no red in it at all. Coherence shouldn't be more important than clarity. The government=red/rebels=green argument doesn't work so well here because having the Hadi government in red and Houthis in lime causes clarity issues on this map so long as Saudi Arabia is in green. And if your proposal of making Saudi Arabia red goes through, we would have to flip the color scheme on the Saudi Arabia warmap in order to maintain consistency and possibly create dark red icons. Also, I wasn't proposing making Sunnis red and Shiites green, I was proposing making Russia/Iran-aligned governments red and Saudi/Turkey-aligned governments green, with Iran-backed proxies (like Hezbollah) orange and Saudi/Turkish-backed proxies (like FSA) lime. Nothing to do with Sunnis and Shiites, it's just geopolitics. And with warmaps where loyalties to either Saudi Arabia or Iran aren't quite so clear or both countries are irrelevant to the conflict, we can then use the default government=red/rebels=green, like in Libya, Sudan, Somalia, etc until more information is revealed or until political affiliations change. As for Saleh forces, they can take on the purple/pink color scheme, although after today's events I suspect they may not last much longer.
I just want something to be done instead of us just repeating the same talking points and doing nothing. If we must, we can apply this color scheme to just the Middle East with Turkey defining the northern boundary, Iran for the east, Yemen for the south, and Egypt or Israel for the west, and leave the default government=red/rebels=green for all other warmaps. Let's just decide and get something done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3069:C470:5F6:DD8:B1E3:8706 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually think being Sunni or Shiite has much to do with it, and indeed in Libya, I agree with the coloration of the allegedly Iranian-backed GNC as a dark green, because it is a rival successor to the 2014 GNC which used the green color now occupied by the GNA. Furthermore, while you are correct that the Houthis have green in their logo, the red stands out more and furthermore the Houthi SPC's national flag is still the Yemeni flag, the same as the Hadi government, and it still has red on it while lacking green. Furthermore, if we are to keep Hadi's color red due to the fact that it is a legitimate government--which may, based on previous consensuses, be true--this would still violate NPOV, as we would be taking up the point of view of the nations recognizing Hadi's government, and, as much as there may be a consensus among the international community in his government's favor, many disagree with this consensus, as you can see above. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view in regards to which government is legitimate, similar to the legacy-based internationally recognized government being rebel-colored on the Libyan Civil War detailed map. Nuke (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: The problem in Yemen is that the Houthi administration is not recognized by any government in the world, no embassy and UN Security Council resolution recognizes the Hadi government as legitimate. The neutrality of the point of view is not to put at the same level the point of view of the Houthis and that of the world and Hadi. In the same way that Assad is in red. For the rest, no reliable source qualifies the Houthis as government, they are rebels. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And in turn, this lack of legal recognition by other states is expected to be the sole reason for making a variety of other changes in order to resolve the problems this color scheme creates -- which does not imply that the SPC is not a proto-state or unrecognized state -- despite the fact that the Yemen article actually takes a neutral point of view on the issue itself, and includes both governments in its infobox. How many other factions' colors have to change, and how many will have to be created, just to include a puny little amount of point of view reflection from reliably cited lack of recognition for one of the factions? This is unreasonable. Nuke (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: It is not a lack of point of view. All reliable secondary sources qualify the government's Hadi government and not that of the Houthis. The article on Yemen is unbalanced. Just as one can not put in the same plan the Assad government and the rebel government. Neutrality is not to make the 50/50 and put on the same plane the two opinions, the neutrality is to report the sources. Or, these the only Hadi government as a government. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Panam2014: It doesn't matter. This is a map. Shoehorning recognition into everything to the extent that it receives undue weight does effectively favor the recognized. Nuke (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: I think consistency is important. But to have dark red for the saudis, I think it's easily doable, in the same way that the orange color was created immediately after the break between Saleh and the Houthis.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Sure, consistency, like how there's red Houthis on the KSA map, or like how the currently-recognized legitimate government in Libya is green, and the past one is red, but there's no dark red icons, or at least not enough, and for now, we've basically got lime Houthis and green Saudis. Adding a dark red color when there's already complaints about there being too many colors is not even a good idea--just to start, we'll eventually have to reintroduce dark green if the Houthis ever acquire a similar ally. We've got to make a whole new set of icons, new changes to other pages, and so on, for "consistency," you say? I have an alternative proposal--there should be less colors on this map, and therefore, in accordance with the KSA template's precedence, the Houthis should be red, the KSA should be green, and in addition, the Hadi/Saudi-led coalition forces should be green. Furthermore, regarding the entire concept of legitimacy-based coloring, this becomes completely irrelevant in a war between UN member states, e.g. a war between India and Pakistan or North Korea and South Korea. Even if the UN intervened, as occurred in the Korean War, would the blue helmets be red? Nuke (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think reversing the colors between Hadi and the Houthis is a bad idea that for almost all maps of civil wars, red in government and contributors understand it like that, including me. I think that since the orange was created immediately after the break between Saleh and the Houthis, we will now have to create this dark red. And it does not make more colors than now, as the dark green will be removed. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: I didn't mean there would be more if dark red replaced dark green; I meant it's a good way to remove one. While it's true that the Syria warmap started a sort of precedent of red gov and green rebels, there's already enough exceptions to this precedent, with the Libya and KSA warmaps. Furthermore, there's still no dark red icons to even utilize for your proposal, even if we were to change the KSA warmap for consistency with the YCW warmap and so on. Nuke (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna weigh in on this and say that the root of the issue here is the fact that when people look at Middle East warmaps, they don't think in terms of Governments vs Rebels. They think in terms of Iran/allies vs Saudi Arabia/allies. Right now, most of the Middle East warmaps (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, KSA, Turkey, and Egypt) are set up so red = Iran-aligned (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Houthis) and Green/Lime = Saudi/Turkey aligned (KSA, Turkey, Syrian Rebels, Egypt, Hadi), with various colors for differently-aligned factions/militias. The only exception is Yemen. Making all gov's red and all rebels green would only create confusion. Can you imagine red Turkey with red Syria and Iraq? Or even red KSA with red Iran?
I submit again that for the Middle East warmaps as defined by the boundaries of Turkey to the north, Iran to the east, Yemen to the south, and Egypt to the west, have the following color scheme
Red = Iran-aligned primary factions (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Houthis)
Green = KSA-aligned primary factions (KSA, Turkey, Gulf States, Egypt)
Lime = KSA-aligned secondary factions (Syrian Rebels, Hadi - Only to seperate them from Turkey and KSA respectively)
Grey = Al-Qaeda/Terrorists
Black = ISIS
All other colors are up for debate on their respective maps.
Outside of the Middle East boundaries, we can stick to the default red=gov and green=rebels.
Thus, the only changes we need to make is to turn the Houthis red and Hadi to lime, and change Hezbollah to orange on the Lebanon warmap. Then, we could finally have consistency and clarity across the Middle East warmaps. TheMapLurker (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For dark red icons, just create them, as for the orange that was created quite quickly. If not, do you propose that the Saudi army and pro-Hadi forces be the same color?--Panam2014 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@TheMapLurker and Panam2014: TML, I disagree with your analysis; as different people have different perspectives on proxy conflicts, map coloration, etc., WP:NPOV, or independence from all points of view, is Wikipedia's guiding policy. And Panam, if it's so easy, then make them yourself.
If, say, a hypothetical war between Saudi Arabia and Iran broke out, we would have a really contrived mapping policy, where Saudi territories occupied by Iran would need to be green, and Iranian territories occupied by Saudi Arabia would need to be green also, and the territories held by the governments recognized by the fairly vague "international community" which may deviate over the course of said war would need to be red. That would be ridiculous and we would have a vandalism guerrilla war on our hands and a load of page protection to make it impossible for normal users to get involved in Wikipedia. While it is true that the government/rebel dichotomy is OK in theory, this war is on two different warmaps. If there were a war between North and South Korea, there are disputes over the current ceasefire line to complicate naval presences, possibilities for disputes over whether to use the 49th parallel or ceasefire line, etc., while simultaneously both Korean governments claim not only each other's de facto area but also have different territorial disputes which may or may not be active, while simultaneously both being internationally recognized by all UN member states except for each other. While it's really just a simple matter of slapping a couple colors on them and calling it a day, if we start edit wars over letting international law dominate every little facet of our warmaps, we'll need to get some full-blown lawyers to figure out what to do.
That said, I would like to state what the current color scheme is:
Red = Libya's Tobruk government (currently cited as Russian-backed); the Syrian, Lebanese, South Sudanese, Sudanese, Iranian, Iraqi, CAR, and Somali internationally recognized governments; Houthis and Houthi-backed rebels in Saudi Arabia; al-Awamiyah while it was besieged by the Saudi government; the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics; and Pakistani Shiite rebels, among others.
Lime/0d0 = Pro-Saudi rebels in Syria, the Egyptian government & its associates in Sudan, the internationally recognized Government of National Accord in Libya (Libyan government as far as WP is concerned per precedent), Djibouti's government, protesters in Iran, Seleka rebels in CAR, nationalist militias in Pakistan, predominantly the Houthis, or intentionally used to represent jihadist rebel infighting as is the case in Afghanistan, and so on.
Green = Turkish-affiliated forces (including government), Saudi Arabian government, Pakistan, Muslim Brotherhood, General National Congress / Government of National Salvation in Libya (unrecognized, currently cited as Iranian-backed)
Yellow = Secessionist and autonomist groups such as Iraqi Kurdistan, Somaliland, and Rojava, but sometimes also used for secondary rebel groups, such as the Anti-balaka in the CAR warmap or SPLM-N in Sudan's warmap, and even used for fully recognized, sovereign governments, such as India and Sudan. And yes, the government of Sudan has both red and yellow markers in different templates, just like Saudi Arabia.
Orange = Secondary autonomist faction color used for Khatumo State, Yazidi militias, etc. It has also been used as a general auxiliary color for the YCW map for pro-Saleh forces, a color for locals in the Sudan warmap, and a color for the People's Republic of China.
Blue = Local forces' and warlords' color, former color of the PFG in Libya, used for Shiite rebels in Lebanon including Hezbollah, etc., and the Republic of Ukraine. This should generally be used for indie militants basically. Other than the PFG, which now occupies like 2 green markers as a GNA-affiliated militant group in Libya and was colored blue because it was a neutral guard for petroleum facilities in Libya prior to this, the exceptions to the "indie militants" precedent with regards to unaffiliation would be the Shiites in Lebanon and Balhaf in Yemen.
Gray = Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS affiliates when not clearly distinguishable from other jihadist groups or otherwise bundle-able such as Jundallah (Iran), and other jihadist Shura Councils and so on. Essentially, this color is for miscellaneous jihadist groups, other than the relatively accepted MB and the extreme hostile al-Qaeda.
Black = This color is for virtually all ISIS affiliates, one of the most consistent colors among warmaps. However, the Kenyan government also uses it, as its flag is the blackest of all the flags of groups on the South Sudan warmap.
Purple = Truce. We don't see much of that. But stable mixed control markers are used in its place on virtually every warmap except the SCW one.
As demonstrated above, the green-rebel/red-government dichotomy is not universal; at times, red is explicitly used only for rebel groups, and both shades of green are frequently used for national governments. Egypt, for instance, already uses lime for the sake of avoiding confusion with the red-colored Tobruk government and Sudanese government.
Even in the case of the SCW warmap, which seems to be the origin of many "standards" applied to other warmaps, flag colors can almost always be attached to the colors of those they represent. The government flag of Syria is more red than green. The rebel flag of Syria is more green than red. The ISIS flag is black. The al-Nusra/JFS/HTS flags have always been less black than al-Qaeda's and sorta have a gray element to them. Unlike almost all other factions in the SCW, Rojava's flag had yellow, and the SDF has a predominantly yellow flag. Turkey received its own color resembling the faction it supported, the opposition. The truce color, purple, is a mix of red and blue--the colors of the Ukraine warmap. The Yazidis are a Kurdish group and so received a color resembling that of the Kurds, serving as a parallel to the Turkish precedent.
Generally, most sovereign states using black, orange, or yellow are doing so in disputed territory. You could make some sort of justification for almost all of these maps. This actually leads to a variety of inconsistencies--for instance, Sudan's government is both yellow and red, depending on which map you're looking at. These are obviously issues that I believe should be resolved, but I'm not going to go change them until this consensus is reached.
The fact is these colors do not need to and do not represent anything. They don't need to represent national symbols (as Turkey demonstrates), conflict roles (as Sudan shows), proxy masters (as the GNC demonstrates), sectarian affiliation (as non-sectarian conflicts demonstrate), ISIS affiliation (as Kenya shows), or recognition/status/sovereignty (as many show). They do not demonstrate legal opinions or anything of the sort, and Wikipedia is not a website for legal advice.
Map colors exist as a way to state factual information. The map is not serving this purpose right now. Not only do we have two green factions which don't have fully separate map icons for several things, and thus sometimes have to share colors, but we have opposing sides sharing icons. Green and green look like allies. Red and green look like enemies. Only one person opposes this change that has been held up for several years. Can we give it a rest and make the change already? Nuke (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: 4 people is not enough to act a consensus. We should open a RfC. Also, please read WP:CRYSTALBALL for the fictitous war between Iran and KSA. For now, there are no reason to change and also, it is not necessary to give to the KSA a different color than the Yemeni government. Also, I will ask the author of the orange icons to create a dark black. Or I will open a graphical lab request. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Not everything needs a RfC. Besides the fact that I do not see any comments by the two users you claim agree with your point of view in this section of the talkpage, your crystal ball claim is nonsense. I was not predicting a conflict between them, but giving examples of potential issues with your proposed red/green rule (which, as demonstrated above, is not actually a rule) and how this cannot apply to wars taking place in multiple countries, and has other issues. Needless to say, I actually made a mistake. I did not notice the previous discussion about this. Whatever is the case, neither side has a consensus, it seems, as there seems to be a roughly even divide. The fact is that with the status quo, which has like zero supporters as even you have condemned it, the Houthis and Saudis have shared icons, are hard to tell apart, appear to be allies, and are direct enemies. Nuke (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: they were opposed. You can see that in the archived versions. Also, please give me a reason the reverse the colors. Also, I have asked contributors for making dark red icons. I have a transitional solution. We could put KSA in red. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014 and TheMapLurker: Alright, let's see what the third editor who's been recently involved in this dispute thinks of your proposal, Panam. Nuke (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: red for shia and green for sunna is not an argument. Also, Grayshark's argument have been dismissed. We could wait again. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Even if I disagree with the Sunni/Shiite argument, the fact is that the Saudi national color is green. You contended that the Houthis should be green based on the presence of green in their logo. Realistically, given neither side has modified their versions of Yemen's national symbols from the originals as far as I know, this would mean the map should use the orange of the General People's Congress logo. Coincidentally, this would be the same as the pro-Saleh coloring, which means that such a color change would require getting rid of the pro-Saleh forces. Like I said, however, these colors should not be regarded as representing anything, and the most convenient color possible should be used, but in this case, the YCW warmap is inconsistent with the Saudi one. Given the Saudis are properly green, and the Houthis should not be confused with the Saudis, the Houthis should be red. I'm willing to give up the color merge with the Hadi govt to achieve a compromise...but if people who haven't opined in years are to be included, then a years-long dispute should not be rushed to a conclusion like this. Nuke (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: I am in favor of two options. Or we create a dark red for saudi to replace the dark green. Or we put the Saudis in red. Indeed, I think that in the Yemeni case, the reading grid is relevant. Houthis are rebels when they operate in Yemen or even Saudi Arabia. And the second option could be a provisional option until we create the dark red. For Libya, it is a different conflict and then the map has not been updated since the Tobruk government was initially recognized and for ease as the GNA was installed on the territory of the rebel GNS government . Finally, for GNS pockets of resistance, we created the dark green. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I will let you continue your discussion and will not weigh in on it. However, the status quo is no longer acceptable. As a temporary measure, I will change the color of Saudi Arabia to make it the same as that of Hadi. Saudi Arabia participates in full support of Hadi. In Syria war map, there is no separate color for Iran, Hezbollah, Russia because they fight in support of the Syrian government. I will make the caption say “Hadi & Saudi...” Tradediatalk 17:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Republican Guard
If the map stays the way it is, and the Republican Guard launches it's preemptive strike on the Houthis from the Southern cities/bases (i.e. Al-Anad and Ataq city) we will soon have no choice, but add them as an independent faction, because unlike the current discussion that is being held they have refused to recognize Hadi's legitimacy and are following the so-called former president's (Ali Abdullah Saleh) advice, and have only coordinated with the Saudi Coalition. Sources are here [23][24]Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they should be added with a separate color on the map until this "too many colors" situation is closed. Nuke (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If he is there, that means it is with the blessing of Hadi loyalists. If he kicks out Hadi loyalists and tries to make a name for himself alone, like the STC is trying to do in Aden, then an orange colour might be appropriate. That said, Saleh loyalists get along with Hadi loyalists but are hated by Southerners. They'd sooner support Hadi than the STC (which I assume is your implication about Anad and Ataq). Historically, Saleh and Islah were allied against Houthis and Southerners, and the Saleh/Houthi alliance against the Islah/Southern alliance appear to be simultaneously unraveling, last month in Sanaa, and this time in Aden. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@NightShadeAEB and NuclearWizard: In that case, can someone provide me with the source that was used to make Ataq under partial control of the STC, because it doesn't make any sense that Tarek who is hated by the STC, was welcomed in Ataq, if in fact it is under control by the STC. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Can you show CC22 that source? I think you contributed that Ataq is under partial STC rule. Nuke (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014, NuclearWizard, and NightShadeAEB: Breaking news. The leader of the STC (Aidarus al-Zoubaidi) has announced via France 24 full military cooperation with Tarek Saleh and the Republican Guard to liberate northern territories. (see here [25]) Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014, NuclearWizard, and NightShadeAEB: Just wanted to let you guys know that the offensive strike that we were speculating back in January has come to fruition, Tarek Saleh and his forces (the republican guard) have officially (as of Thursday April 19, 2018) announced an offensive to liberate the governorates of Taiz and Al-Hodeidah from the Houthis. (one of the few English sources I've found that give a somewhat in-depth explanation of the offensive's objectives [26]) Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: You don't need to ping us to add this. Just add it and include a reliable source or two. At the moment, Socotra is red because UAE's army is red, so maybe you should just add a special color for Socotra given its odd situation. Nuke (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: but should we use orange or yellow ? Because the Yemeni government rejects the occupation.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Panam2014: Orange works fine. Yellow is used by the STC, but also it was previously used for Socotra and "UAE-aligned rebel groups" anyway, so it can easily apply to "Emirati occupation" -- that said, if anyone reverts you, just ping that person rather than starting a revert war, please. This war is bizarrely complicated with all of the infighting. Nuke (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
STC and AQAP in South Yemen
I've been doing some research, and it seems a lot of inaccuracies are depicted on this map.
First, major locales like Ahwar and the Shihr coastline are no longer AQAP occupied, but liberated long ago by UAE backed Security Belt, Shabwani Elite and Hadhrami Elite forces. Ahwar was liberated by the Security Belt in August 2017[27]. Shihr and Ghayl Bawazir were liberated by the Hadhrami Elite the same week as Mukalla in April 2016[28]. Here Rayda, Deys, Qusayaar, and Hami are mentioned by name[29][30]. When you google recent news, you find that the government is governing these areas naturally, for instance here in 2018 the government captured a cache of weapons in Qusayaar[31]. UAE Red Crescent active in Rayda, Douan, Qusayaar, Deys, along with Shihr and Mukalla[32]. A decoration of Qur'an school students includes those from Rayda and Qusayaar.[33]. Discussions to upgrade the power generators at Rayda and Qusayaar[34]. The picture painted here is that these cities were liberated back in 2016.
Next, the Mukalla coastline should be yellow, not red, since it is controlled by the pro-STC Hadhrami Elite forces who belong to the Second Military Region, under the leadership of Hadhramaut governor Farj Salmin al Bahsini. The Seiyun and Tarim area, known as wadi Hadhramaut or Hadhramaut valley, is under the control of the First Military Region, which remained loyal to Hadi and did not disintegrate like its southern counterpart. There are tensions between the two sides, with pro-STC forces calling for the Hadhrami Elite to move north and the military governors of the north refusing to cede the territory.[35][36]. A Saudi officer in the northern area said recently that there was no need for the Hadhrami Elite to deploy north since the first region operates well and did not dissolve like its southern counterparts, instead suggesting they will recruit Hadhramis under the aegis of the first region[37][38], which from my reading is meant to play down Hadhrami nationalism since the first region is filled with Yemenis from all provinces.
Also, Socotra should be made yellow, since the UAE is the main backer of the STC, and the STC came out in support of the UAE against Hadi[39].
I'm still digging for information, but for the time being I recommend that Ahwar, Socotra, Mukalla, Shihr, Ghayl Bawazir, Rayda, Deys, Qusayaar, should all be made yellow. Most likely the whole coast from Hudayda until the edge of Mahra should be made yellow, due to the control of the STC and UAE over these areas. Even in Hudayda the southern Amalika units and UAE are the ones leading the charge. NightShadeAEB (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This map was very useful in opening my eyes and pointing me in the right direction.[40]. I recommend you guys look over it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Has al-Arabiya been formally designated as an unreliable source for this map? Nuke (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Press TV is very biased. I would not use this source, except possibly to report advances made by the Pro-Hadi side (assuming that this source even accurately reports such advances at all). LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
What about Al Masdar? I notice people are using it to mark gains on both the Syria and Yemen maps this week. I thought we banned it as a source last year? NightsideAEB (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Imaginary Al-Qaeda in Hadhramaut
This map shows large parts of Hadhramaut under control of Al-Qaeda, but I think it is mostly imaginary or at least outdated.
While Al-Qaeda took control of southern parts of this province, all of it has been recaptured in 2016 and in subsequent operations Al-Faisal and Black Mountains. Qusay`ir and Ar-Ridah districts have been captured in 2016 (which already has been stated in other post). Operation Black Mountains in 2018 cleared Amed, Dhalia, Hajer and Yabouth districts [41]. Here's sources from 2020 indicating that Daw'an District is under governments control: [42], [43]
When it comes to central and northern parts of this "emirate", especially east of Tarim Al-Qaeda control here is imaginary or overestimated. In 2014 archicivilians uploaded map showing big parts of Hadhramaut province under control of AQAP and sunni tribes. It was used 6 days later to create Wikipedia's detailed map, which led to png map. This map inspired many other maps (especially this which was based on this wikipedia map uploaded 6 days before), which created circular reference with mappers using wikipedia as source and wikipedia using these maps to mark exacts villages. However there is little evidence that this pocket exists. This article from January 2016 tells that AQ controlled only southern part of province while First Military District controlled hinterland including Hadramaut valley. For example this map shows As Sawm District, east of Tarim as AQ controlled, while in May 2020 local authorities opened hospital there [44], in 2017 UAE distributed humanitarian aid there without any problem [45] and in 2016 Hadhramaut Tribal Alliance met in this area [46]. There is also no proof that Al-Qaeda ever captured Tarim city, however there were multiple attacks in cities in area. Al-Qaeda presence in northern part was based on news that suspected AQ militians took control of outpost in Mankwah district, which was interpreted as A-Watiyah border crossing according to another site, polgeonow.com. However in June it was reported that Hadi forces recaptured Watiyah crossing, but from Houthi forces [47]. "Corridor" linking both parts of Emirate was based on fact that Al-Qaeda reportedly took control of Masila Oil Field on 17 April 2015. It was misinterpreted because military in fact abandoned this area in April but handed them over to local tribes ([48], [49]), not Al-Qaeda. It is probable that original archicivilians map showed areas in control of local tribes east of Tarim, not AQ.
Al-Qaf District where presumed AQ emirate lies also is under government control: [50], [51]. According to this recent article from April 2019 pro-Hadi forces and aligned tribes control central Hadhramaut and border with Saudi Arabia, while STC has presence in Al-Mukalla and coastal area.
An IP editor added text (“Yemen Civil War Update”) at Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map/doc with an edit on 3 October 2020 (this is the “documentation” space that is reserved for technical instructions about using the map). I put a message on his talk page but did not get a response. So I moved what he wrote to here (see below) in case the regulars of this map can find something useful to use from it. Tradediatalk 08:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Yemen Civil War Update
02 October 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Al Quḩayţah, Aţ Ţābīr & Āl Manşūr subdistricts of Harib district in S. #Marib #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
01 October 2020
@Suriyak
@Suriyakmaps
After cleaning of the area captured yesterday, #Houthis fully secured Al Quḩayţah, Aţ Ţābīr & Āl Manşūr subdistricts of Harib district in S. #Marib today.
Quote Tweet
Yemen Civil War Update
3o September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Far‘ al Mudhib, Al Wadam & Barad at Tarakah in S. #Marib #Yemen
Translated Tweet
3:53 PM · Sep 30, 2020·Twitter Web App
Yemen Civil War Update
29 September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Harib axis, Jabal Naşīb Khalīlah, Dhira al Ghawl, Şinnah & Al Mirwā in S. #Marib #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
17 September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Araftan mountain, Malih and Manaqil in Rahbah district from #Saudi-led coalition #Marib #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
16 September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Jabal Şalīl & Jabal ash Shuramī and advances towards Jibal al Sahl in Jubah district & Washal in Jabal Murad district, while other troops are aproaching to As Salibah area in Harib district & Waynan area in Jubah district further south #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
13 September 2020
Heavy clashes btwn #Houthis/#AnsarAllah and #Saudi coalition forces on the east and west fronts of Madghal and the outskirts of Al-Ruwaik base in the north of #Marib #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
12 September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured Jabal Ḩunuf & Ḩūth.
Heavy clashes are taking place in Ḩayd Bin Ḩāriz in S #Marib #Yemen
Yemen Civil War Update
10 September 2020
Houthis/#AnsarAllah captured residential area of Madghil district with and villages of Dabin, Majza’, Zabdah, Hanzub, Samerah, Arqah, Zarbah, Safira, Khurayba and Hosur in N of #Madghal district #Yemen
Twitter
Twitter is not a reliable source. Please, stop making edits on this template based on tweets of unknown and unverified Twitter accounts. OKMG-1200 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Some editors use an unknown and unverified Twitter account named Suriyakmaps for editing this template. Please check the using Twitter as source discussion WP:RSPTWITTER. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Even though it is considered generally unreliable by Wikipedians, Twitter can be a reliable source if the accounts being used are journalists with reliable information, of which many template mappers rely on twitter-using journalists to verify their sources. One of these people is the Twitter account named Suriyakmaps. If you look at other war templates like Syria, Taliban insurgency, etc, Twitter accounts considered reliable are used including Suriyakmaps. Wowzers122 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wowzers122: You are right my friend about using Twitter accounts of journalists. BUT, Suriyakmaps is not a journalist. We don't know even who is Suriyakmaps in real life. We don't know who owns this account. It is an unknown and unverified account. Thus, we can not use it. Also, did you read the warning of copying from other maps in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map. please ping me so I can see your reply. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@OKMG-1200: While it may be true that Suriyakmaps is an unverified account. Most of the time his information still lines up with other non-twitter sources. Also, as I said before, templates like Syria and the Taliban insurgency use his account and other non-verified accounts for their sources. Also, when did I copy from a map? If I did, you can undo it. Wowzers122 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wowzers122: My friend, If there are other sources that line up with Suriyakmaps then there is no need to use this unknown account.Also, if some people do wrong things, this does not mean what they are doing is right. Thus, if some editors use Suriyakmaps as a source in other maps, this doesn't make Suriyakmaps a reliable source. Remember, Two wrongs don't make a right!!!
Also, reporting the same events here in this map that were reported by Suriyakmaps is considered copying.OKMG-1200 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@OKMG-1200: Sources don't line up 100% and some report things faster than others. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. It's Not like I'm copying from Suriyak's maps, I'm just adding what he reports in his tweets. Which don't change with or without a map. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wowzers122: my friend, I strongly advise you not to use an unknown Twitter accounts. we should always stick to the use of reliable sources. Wikipedia community decided that unknown Twitter accounts are unreliable. that is all I have to say. regarding the copying issue, here what the rules of map editing says: "Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit." OKMG-1200 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Clarification of my edit on Module on 28 November 2021
@Wowzers122: What the edit summary on my edit ("Since Battle_of_Hudaydah_(2018).svg was removed...") meant was not that the SVG file was deleted or something but rather that it was removed from the template/module by the following edit:
Was observed. K!lluminati (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Done I removed the link because there is no article or description about the Yemen town Zamzam. Tradediatalk 01:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: There is currently a discussion above about the matter, if you would like to give your point of view. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
