Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process . Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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

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]

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]