Talk:Ukraine passes bill on war-torn eastern regions

Local copy of the map

Though the file was not updated since 2014, there should be a local copy of it -- the caption should suggest it is more than three years old, and also, is the map accurate? [make sure to check it]
118.151.209.30 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Map replaced. --SVTCobra 09:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

However, it should be a local copy.
118.151.209.30 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? --SVTCobra 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it can change over time @Pi zero: would you mind briefing about map of the African Union? File:Map of the African Union.svg
118.151.209.30 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The first map could, but this map shows lines of the Minsk II deal, which is a set point in time and the lines will never change. --SVTCobra 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Few months ago, I noticed Fae had filed a case on ANB on Commons because two editors were continuously reverting file histories over political boundaries and territories. Such things can happen when a map is not locally maintained, and goes against archive policy as well as the accuracy of the image.
223.237.212.185 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who Fae is and you give me no frame of reference. This map is one that was agreed to by all sides of the conflict. It is unreasonable to suspect that it will become the subject of an edit-war on Commons any more than suspecting the photograph will become the subject of an edit war. If you feel it is vital to the integrity of Wikinews to upload it locally, go ahead, but I think it is a waste of time. --SVTCobra 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And please stop spitting out things like it is against Wikinews:Archive conventions when such issues are not mentioned at all. Again and again, you state things are against policy, as if you know policy. All you are doing is demonstrating that you do not know policy. --SVTCobra 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

<pi zero drops in > @SVTCobra: Fwiw, Fae is a very active Commoner, who has been generally friendly toward Wikinews (for a while, ran a very useful bot that tracked proposals to delete images that are used on any Wikinews). --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean Fæ? --SVTCobra 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I understand the archive policy—file changes are not acceptable. It is a snapshot in time. Even the logo changes are not acceptable. Only if we had the African Union article published, you would have seen the problem. Pizero; I think you should explain how that map changed; the file version history would suggest that, too.
223.237.212.17 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The African Union is a living thing. Like NATO or EU, countries can join or leave. Sometimes countries change, like when Sudan split into two. This, however, is a static map of what all parties agreed to in the Minsk II agreement. Even if Russia invaded all of Ukraine and annexed it, it would not change this map. --SVTCobra 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure the country map which Fae mentioned was “agreed upon” but still that did not stop those people from fighting over the territory. A local copy of a map with confirmed lincese should be kept locally to prevent it from those issues.
223.237.241.187 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what issue you are talking about with regards to Fæ; is it African Union? But what exactly prevents a similar fight from breaking out over here? (Aside from the statistical probability due to a smaller user base). --SVTCobra 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4377377 [Passed]

Revision 4377377 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The whole 'map' thing doesn't seem to me to impinge on the review at all. None of the sources call it "Minsk II"; it seemed to carry a bit of conceptual baggage, so I chose to be safe. Most English-language news doesn't provide the non-English originals of quotes; seems to me to fit nicely with Wikinews's attitude toward source disclosure. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4377377 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The whole 'map' thing doesn't seem to me to impinge on the review at all. None of the sources call it "Minsk II"; it seemed to carry a bit of conceptual baggage, so I chose to be safe. Most English-language news doesn't provide the non-English originals of quotes; seems to me to fit nicely with Wikinews's attitude toward source disclosure. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

The first Minsk agreement was a total failure, so now most people refer to Minsk II as just Minsk, even though it is the second one. If we do the same, I don't mind, as long as we keep the links pointing to Minsk II. --SVTCobra 17:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)