Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014: show both |
Older and ... well older (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014 == |
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014 == |
||
{{edit semi-protected|Qumran|answered= |
{{edit semi-protected|Qumran|answered=yes}} |
||
<!-- Begin request --> |
<!-- Begin request --> |
||
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel |
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:I agree that this needs to be clarified. Obviously it is in what Israel considers its national park which is located on the West Bsnk. If Israel controls it we can say that while pointing out the implications of its geographical location. I'm not sure how to word that. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
:I agree that this needs to be clarified. Obviously it is in what Israel considers its national park which is located on the West Bsnk. If Israel controls it we can say that while pointing out the implications of its geographical location. I'm not sure how to word that. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::I've deactivated the template for now. The article is about the historical site and not about Israel or the Palestinian territories. It looks like the current article deals with this issue by referring to Kayla consistently as a settlement; referring to the location as Kayla, West Bank; and labeling the map to indicate that the site falls in that political boundary. Possibly we could go on to describe Kayla in the lead as "near the Israeli settlement and kibbutz of Kalya, within the West Bank Palestinian territory." The sources talk about the park and I think trying to remove mention of the park is a bit Orwellian. Regards, [[User:Older and ... well older|Older and ... well older]] ([[User talk:Older and ... well older|talk]]) 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:44, 31 May 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Collapsible bibliography
I have removed the redundant collapsible bibliography section heading per MOS:COLLAPSE. it's not needed, and redundant to the heading directly above. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:COLLAPSE is of no help to your edit. You have no consensus to change the status quo. You have no grounds to make the edit you have. As it is you appear to be edit warring regarding something that has been in place for years. You need to put it back the way it was.
- The collapsible sections were put in place to make easier the navigation of the article which has such a large reference section and bibliography -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:COLLAPSE actually does require that all portions of the article excepting some navigation items (navboxes, sidebars) be uncollapsed. Frietjes is entirely correct for removing them. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the article had the items uncollapsed. He is entirely incorrect. The reader had the choice of collapsing the sections in order to navigate the long article. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then the collapsing is fluff and unnecessary. There is a table of contents at the top of the article, and the references can be maneuvered simply by clicking the numbers/carots. That leaves only the section on the "site", which the navigation for that section can be improved a number of other standard ways. In particular, right now it looks rather like a WP:GALLERY, which I have to question whether is of high value to this article. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Politicians usually don't admit they've made a mistake. They just change the subject and proceed. When you are in the middle of the article, it is easy to collapse a section, rather than return to the top and renavigate. What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful". The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The removal is correct: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes, but collapsible sections which are mentioned later in MOS:COLLAPSE. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- And I don't think anyone considers references and image galleries as "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is no indication that the collapsible sections are exclusive to tables, ie MOS:COLLAPSE doesn't say where collapsible sections cannot be used. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- By your logic someone could make every section a collapsible section. The intent of MOS:COLLAPSE is pretty clear, no matter how you try to twist it. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Reductio ad absurdum is a very dull instrument. But if somebody were to go to the extreme of making every section collapsible, if they followed MOS:COLLAPSE, there would be not much of a problem. It would just be overused and Wiki goes for moderation. Your "clear" bears no relation to MOS:COLLAPSE. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- By your logic someone could make every section a collapsible section. The intent of MOS:COLLAPSE is pretty clear, no matter how you try to twist it. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is no indication that the collapsible sections are exclusive to tables, ie MOS:COLLAPSE doesn't say where collapsible sections cannot be used. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- And I don't think anyone considers references and image galleries as "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes, but collapsible sections which are mentioned later in MOS:COLLAPSE. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not a "politician". Please do not indirectly assert such. Even if any of us is wrong, changing the subject is not an incorrect strategy to assert that the choice to use collapsible tables (or any other method) is an incorrect choice of strategy to take.
"What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful"." – I went and checked the article history and the talk page above. Your argument basically boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. You are the only one who has ever asserted that there is any value to collapsibility of entire sections. If you want to bring up "that it has not been removed prior by any one who has visited", all I have to point to is "there are literally millions of other articles which do not feature anything of this sort".
"We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes." – The exact quotes in context you are looking for are "[…] boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions..." and "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text" (emphasis mine). In the context of the first quote, I would say that all of the sections you are asserting should use collapsed tables are all three of the items voiced in that sentence. It is clear that the prohibition is targeting exactly what you are doing here. As for the second section, there are no tables present, and if there were, they would not considate information. (That sentence is granting an exception to navboxes, infoboxes, and sidebars plus a few other templates; most of these are not printed in text versions anyway, which is part of the reason for the guideline.)
It's pretty clear here that you are wikilawyering by attempting to grant yourself exceptions to community rules by ignoring the spirit of the guidelines (as well as list items 3 and 4 in the lead there). Without reason to, your local consensus of exactly 1 person is not convincing. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The removal is correct: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Politicians usually don't admit they've made a mistake. They just change the subject and proceed. When you are in the middle of the article, it is easy to collapse a section, rather than return to the top and renavigate. What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful". The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then the collapsing is fluff and unnecessary. There is a table of contents at the top of the article, and the references can be maneuvered simply by clicking the numbers/carots. That leaves only the section on the "site", which the navigation for that section can be improved a number of other standard ways. In particular, right now it looks rather like a WP:GALLERY, which I have to question whether is of high value to this article. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the article had the items uncollapsed. He is entirely incorrect. The reader had the choice of collapsing the sections in order to navigate the long article. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:COLLAPSE actually does require that all portions of the article excepting some navigation items (navboxes, sidebars) be uncollapsed. Frietjes is entirely correct for removing them. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Undent, as I took something of a tangent on this point: "The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site." – Is that what Wikipedia is for? I'm asking the question seriously and as an aside to see if there are other ways to improve the offending sections. It seems to be very weighty, and if someone to work on this article to the point that it were a good article nominee, would that section seriously survive as is? I think the answer is no, and thereby there is probably a better way to present the information in that section. To show why it would not survive, it is pretty easy to say that it is currently unverified by reliable third party sources. Reducing the section down to an actual gallery with some text above would make a lot of sense. (Of course, keep in mind the warnings in WP:GALLERY—these sections are not always appropriate.) --Izno (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not assert that you were a politician. And I did not ask for a text wall of wikilawyering because you wrongly felt aggrieved. Clearly you are not here to contribute anything of substance to the article. Thank you for your thoughts but there is an article that needs work. -- I.Hutchesson ► 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Please remove classification as Israeli National Park, as this is illegal
Toatec (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this needs to be clarified. Obviously it is in what Israel considers its national park which is located on the West Bsnk. If Israel controls it we can say that while pointing out the implications of its geographical location. I'm not sure how to word that. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've deactivated the template for now. The article is about the historical site and not about Israel or the Palestinian territories. It looks like the current article deals with this issue by referring to Kayla consistently as a settlement; referring to the location as Kayla, West Bank; and labeling the map to indicate that the site falls in that political boundary. Possibly we could go on to describe Kayla in the lead as "near the Israeli settlement and kibbutz of Kalya, within the West Bank Palestinian territory." The sources talk about the park and I think trying to remove mention of the park is a bit Orwellian. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)