Jump to content

Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Carmel, Har Hebron)

Requested move 14 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Consensus met for "Carmel (Israeli settlement)". While place names typically use a comma rather than parenthetical for disambig, this is not an absolute rule. The proposed title is a reasonable NPOV solution. Hadal (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel, Mount Hebron → Carmel (Israeli settlement) – Mount Hebron is not an administrative district, and there isnt a natural disambiguation for Carmel besides possibly West Bank, but that would gloss over the differences between Israeli settlements and Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. So the most obvious disambigiation, and most common way of referring to Carmel, is Israeli settlement. Nableezy 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Revert close and relist, per offer below BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why?

[edit]

User:BilledMammal: Just a question: why did you move Carmel, Mount Hebron to Carmel, West Bank?

The way I see it, the overwhelming support was to move this to Carmel (Israeli settlement), Huldra (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it had more support, I considered the policy based arguments for Carmel, West Bank to be stronger. However, I am willing to revert the close and relist if editors think that will be more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that on User_talk:Jerium#RM_closure_review it is stated that "says human settlements should be disambiguated via a comma." However, WP:PLACEDAB also states that parenthesis can also be used, as in Wolin (town). Do we need a RfC for *all* the places mentioned above ( Elazar, Gush Etzion, Eli, Mateh Binyamin, Gilgal, Bik'at HaYarden, etc)? Huldra (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That line of place dab is referring to circumstances where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the location; I saw the comment about Carmel (biblical settlement), but found it unconvincing due to the abandoned nature of the settlement. Regarding your question, for some of those no disambiguation is required, and for the others it seems likely, though I haven't checked, that no argument can be made that the exception applies.
If you believe that it would be better to disambiguate the ones for which it is required with (Israeli settlement), then a multi-move request might succeed; it would have the benefit off adding a hypothetical consistency argument, and since WP:PLACEDAB is only a naming convention exceptions can be made if a strong policy-based argument is made - your comment about recognizability would help towards that, though it lacked support in this discussion.
For those that don't require disambiguation, however, I don't think RM's will be sufficient; guidelines and convention against unnecessary disambiguation, particularly parenthetical disambiguation, is too strong. For those, I believe you would need to update naming convention through an RfC; the naming convention relevant to this topic area is WP:NCWB.
If you have further comments or questions, please ping me; I do not have this page on my watchlist. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, the population (or lackthereof) of Carmel (biblical settlement) is, as far as I can see, irrelevant to this move request, especially given the fact that ancient land claims are often discussed in relation to the conflict. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, revert it, note not relist it, and also given your involvement in the topic area I very strongly suggest you not be the person to be closing RMs and RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area. That naming convention is about WB vs J/S and has nothing to do with the disambiguation to be used here. If you favored one name over the other you should have voted for it, and with past participation in the topic area such as here and here it boggles the mind that you would consider yourself an uninvolved editor in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 00:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And pinging BilledMammal for your attention to the above comment. nableezy - 01:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That naming convention has nothing to do with this discussion; I linked it because if Huldra wishes to open an RfC on setting a naming convention for this area that is where I believe it should go.
I have relisted per my offer to Huldra; there are some move requests in this broad topic area that I wouldn't close due to considering myself involved, but this isn't one of them. I will add that I have no personal preference on either of the two names. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in the topic area, and you should not be closing discussions in it. The ARBPIA topic area is not that broad, and if you want to close discussions there are countless articles on Wikipedia outside of it. nableezy - 01:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to move it back in the meantime. nableezy - 01:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot that bit. Doing so. In the past day I have closed or relisted around 30 move requests; I saw and see this one as no different than the others I have closed, including within what could be seen as ARBPIA such as Talk:1990 Temple Mount killings#Requested move 9 February 2023, Talk:Zikhron Ya'akov#Requested move 17 February 2023, and Talk:Atlit#Requested move 22 February 2023. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldnt close those either. You had a choice, be an editor in the topic area or perform administrative tasks in it. You chose editor. nableezy - 01:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal: Thank you for undoing your move. And in addition to the examples mentioned by Nableezy, you voted here: Talk:2023_Jenin_incursion#Requested_move_1_February_2023, and here: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#2023_February (about 1948 Palestinian exodus), that was just a couple found from *this* year. You really need to stay far away from any closing of a RfC in the IP area, thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in a topic area doesn't make an editor involved for the entire topic area. For example, I am considerably more engaged with New Zealand topics than I am with IP topics, but even there there are many move requests that I can close without involved issues. I also note that my comment in that move review was solely related to my belief that Spectre was not involved, and did not consider the broader question. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can hold that position if you like, but if you continue to close discussions in the topic area Ill ask that you formally be restricted from doing so. You have not only "edited in a topic area", you have been involved in numerous disputes in the topic area, all of which have shown a consistent ideological position that would disqualify you from portraying yourself as a neutral disinterested observer. There are countless other topics you can close discussions in, kindly stop in this one. nableezy - 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carmel_(Israeli_settlement)&oldid=1200650669"