Template talk:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Image in template

This template really shouldn't have an image. Also it shouldn't be called 'Nakba'. The reasons are as follows:

1. The image serves no purpose other than to dramatize the template, which is against Wikipedia's principles of neutrality (WP:NPOV). It does not provide more information to the article. It would be like including a particularly thin Holocaust survivor's picture in a Holocaust navbox, or a picture of a bloodied Israeli killed in a terrorist attack in a navbox dealing with terrorist attacks.
2. The image is harmful because it significantly increases the template's height, especially on 4:3 monitors/resolutions (e.g. 1024x768).
3. The Nakba is an Arabic word which should not be predominantly used in the English Wikipedia. The consensus right now is Palestinian exodus. However, in this case neither should be used, because this navbox isn't about the Palestinian exodus, but specifically about depopulated villages, and should be titled thus.

I will also notify WP:IPCOLL of this discussion.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can the the text be word-wrapped around the image? Then it would take up hardly any space. I'm not sure what you mean by "dramatize" the template, I can't imagine anyone objecting to a Holocaust image (say, a Gestapo "doctor" dividing a line of arrivals or the famous gate) providing it doesn't show people in immediate distress.

The word Nakba has long since passed into the English language - it's over 30 times more popular than "Palestinian Exodus" by the Google test (635,000 hits to 19,600). I don't know what the Nakba is about, unless it's de-populated villages. PR^talk 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by word-wrapped around the image. It's not prose so word wrap wouldn't affect it anyway. What do you have in mind?

About dramatizing, that's exactly the point - using the Arabic term and having a picture of someone suffering does unnecessarily dramatize the event (not to mention there's absolutely no argument for keeping the image). Wikipedia's job is to report facts, not put a spin on them. The word nakba is certainly not more common than English terms - it refers to a general event, which also has to do with the term "Palestinian refugee(s)" in English, which passes the 'Google test'. But that's beside the point because per WP:NC, WP:ENGLISH takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME either way. Shoah is a much more well-known word in English than nakba, but you don't see anyone using it in place of Holocaust in the English Wikipedia. That combined with the fact that many worldwide don't agree with the term nakba at all, which also makes it problematic per WP:NPOV when used unnecessarily.

About I don't know what the Nakba is about, unless it's de-populated villages. - you seem to be missing the point. The point is that nakba is a much more general term than just depopulated villages, so it would be a strange name for such a template (even if none of the above issues existed). It would be like making a template listing only Nazi death camps and nothing else, and then titling it Shoah. Assuming none of the above issues existed, one would expect a nakba template to include persons associated with the event, possibly some notable villages, notable massacres like Deir Yassin, etc. - not a huge list of villages.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Applying the Google Test to ("Palestinian refugees" + "Palestinian exodus") vs "Nakba" may be some form of error on your part - it bears no relation to the claim that the "Palestinian Exodus" is the consensus term. The Holocaust/Shoah comparison seems irrelevant, the English term is 15 times more popular than the non-English. Please tell us what Nakba really means/implies. PR^talk 11:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think using 'palestinian refugees' in a search is pretty fair. Even the Wikipedia article says in the lead sentence: the Nakba ... refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war. Moreover, in Arab-speaking countries it also refers to the 1948 war in general, so that can be added to the English search. It should also be obvious that nakba is not the widely-accepted English term by the top Google results - almost all Arabic-run pages like alnakba.org, electronicintifada, palestineremembered.com, nakba60.org.uk, hanini.org, etc. By comparison, the top results for Shoah are mostly websites clearly not affiliated with Israelis or other Hebrew-speakers. Still we use English. Please keep in mind that a Google test taken verbatim without analysis doesn't really say anything, and should not be used as the main point of an argument. Do you have actual proof that the nakba is indeed the most common term for the event in English?

However, all of the above is deviating from the real issue - whether nakba is a proper title for a list of depopulated villages. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the "Nakba" entry and noticed "refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem" too - I read that to mean it definitely refers to an event, and is not the name for a group of people. I'm happy with what you say about the use of the word in Israel, but the Google test (crude though it is) is pretty conclusive as regards its use in the English-speaking world.

The image is a different problem, I think it's kinda helpful, but the space taken up is a real issue. Is it really not possible to word-wrap around it? PR^talk 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you have to say about the fact that most of the top results using nakba are Arabic-run websites, in contrast to Shoah, which are not run by Israelis? I think it completely discredits the basic Google test in this case (although as I said, the various English terms for the Arabic term nakba already clearly outperform it in search results).

About the image: I'm still not sure what you're talking about. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we stick to arguments that are either in policy or are a reasonable extension of existing policy? It may appear that we hate and distrust Palestinians sources, but if they're writing in the language of English then they are English-language sites. (You're wrong anyway, even Israeli newspapers use the word and it is 30 times more popular than your alternative). Redefining "Palestinian Refugees" so as to become an event (Nakba) didn't fly and nor will this. PR^talk 15:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Images in new location

Timeshifer: I'm glad that you moved the images to a less harmful location, but that does not address the concerns I raised above, about the relevancy of the images. What is your position on the issue? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Please explain exactly what is the problem with the current images. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay. The problem is that the images are redundant and have no purpose other than to dramatize the event, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. They are the image equivalent of peacock terms, which should be avoided. Moreover, the images are not directly relevant to the depopulated villages in particular - they are more relevant to the Palestinian exodus in general, and belong in that article alone. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand your objections to the images. None of the guidelines you referred to apply in this case. Your objections seem to be along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Palestinian refugee images are relevant to articles about depopulated Palestinian villages where the old population became Palestinian refugees. The images in question are of people who could be refugees from any of those villages. They are refugees during the period in question. Images are not redundant to text. Both are important and encouraged in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter, although there isn't a precise rule against images in navigation boxes (I guess this hasn't been a problem - where have you seen navboxes with images?), but my argument about violating POV still stands. In fact, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates specifically mentions the NPOV issue in disadvantage #3, and excessive size (which also applies here) in disadvantage #2. Another point which I think clearly illustrates that these images shouldn't be there is: As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? - the answer is no - these images aren't even linked from any of the template's sub-pages, and are not relevant. There's nothing WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. On the contrary, I have provided numerous arguments for why the images should be removed, and have not seen a single one for why they should be kept. The procedure in a case like this should be similar to WP:PROD. On a side note, thanks for catching that 'Palestine Remembered' title nonsense. I can see that you are committed to NPOV, so let's have a civil policy-based discussion about the merits of the images. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantage #3 does not apply because the images do not violate WP:NPOV. Disadvantage #2 does not apply because the template size is not too large. As for whether or not all the cities listed in the template were depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War I wouldn't know. That is not my area of expertise. The images should not be placed directly in the city articles in my opinion. It makes more sense to place the thumbnail images in the template since the images do not relate to specific cities. The refugees could have fled from any of the cities listed in the template. I still do not see any guidelines or policies violated by having these images in the template. Why don't you like these particular images? What images would you prefer in the template? Or do you just not like images? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's where we disagree - both these images clearly violate WP:NPOV (in this context - for reasons already outlined several times - read discussion) and the template is too large even without them, and clearly too large with them. If you want to fix the size problem, it shouldn't be too hard by making a modular template (one module for each district, and one for the images), but that still wouldn't solve the WP:NPOV problem. As Al Ameer son correctly noted, if any images should be used, they should be relevant to the villages (the subject of the template), not the people. Even PR above claimed that the refugees are not inherently part of the same topic as the villages, so I don't see where your objection stems from. I still don't see a single argument in favor of keeping the images, other than WP:ILIKEIT. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Ameer son referred to a template that did not exist: Template:Palestinian refugees. See the rest of my reply to him farther down. I don't see how PR said what you claim. Using a template for each district alone would be OK if each district template linked to a page listing all the villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and if the total number of villages in all the districts was listed in the district templates. This way there is no minimization of the scale of the depopulation. Minimization would be against WP:NPOV. I have already answered your other points. Please see previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any argument for keeping the images other than WP:ILIKEIT? By the way, I didn't mean having multiple templates, but having a modular template, which is one template having multiple collapsible sections. I could code that, but first let's solve the problem with the images. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Images are a part of encyclopedias. This is a long-decided issue. See the Wikimedia Commons. I don't see how a modular template like the one you mentioned (Template:Israel Defense Forces) lessens the total size of the template. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
Timeshifter, "Images are part of encyclopedias" is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Templates are not part of the prose on Wikipedia and therefore don't need illustrations, and I'm not sure what Wikimedia Commons has to do with this. Please stick to the issue at hand. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clearer then. Images are a part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The main location of those images is the Wikimedia Commons. Templates and infoboxes can include prose, images, lists, and much more. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is based on numerous misconceptions, which I will attempt to clear up.

Firstly, images on Wikipedia are meant for illustration, not for other purposes. This is in fact the first line in the image guideline: Wikipedia contains millions of illustrative images and other media. Please clarify how the two images in this template are illustrative of Palestinian villages.

Secondly, Wikimedia Commons is by no means the main location for images on Wikipedia. It happens to be the location for free images (and Wikipedia uses many non-free images also), for technical reasons. The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to allow the same image to be used in multiple-language Wikipedias, as well as sister project, as can be clearly understood from the first paragraph of WP:COMMONS.

Again, you are changing the subject without providing any policy-based argument for 1) Why images are relevant to navigation templates (clearly, they are not), and 2) Why these particular images are relevant to this particular template.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have answered all your points in my previous replies. See also my latest reply to Ravpapa below. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I think there should be a image(s) in the template, but they should be of the villages not the people. That belongs in Template:Palestinian refugees. Also, they shouldn't have their own section but rather be on the side. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The side would be better for the images, but I don't know enough about template code to make the text wrap around the images if they are on the side. Maybe a better template coder can be found to do this. I did not see any template about refugees in here: Category:Palestine templates. If such a template could be created, then the images could be put there, and both templates could be used at the bottom of articles about depopulated villages. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Al Ameer son. However, I don't know enough about template coding either. -- Nudve (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a little survey of infoboxes or navboxes of this type. Images in infoboxes are very rare. A few - for example, Template:National Parks of Norway - have images, but the vast majority have none - see, for example, Template:Slavery, Template:Mountain Meadows massacre series, Template:Sept11, Template:Al-Jihad. These are all examples of boxes that are similar to this template, in that a picture could certainly have been included, yet the authors chose not to include one. Not that I think we can draw any conclusions from this. Personally, I don't think the images are irrelevant - the template is about depopulation and these are pictures of people depopulating - and I think pictures always make something better; on the other hand, the pictures don't make navigating any easier, they just make the box prettier, if that is a word that can be used about information on human suffering.

I do have another issue with this template, however, and one that is much more profound. This infobox needs a source. The box is a sort of navbox, pointing to articles on the individual villages. However, for more than half the villages there is no article. Normally, I would expect to see references in each of the individual articles, which would in turn account for the reliability of the infobox. In this case, though, where many individual articles are missing, I think there needs to be a source given for the information in the box.

Ideally, the source or sources for the list of villages should be in the box itself, but if there is nowhere to put it, I suggest that at least we list the sources on the talk page. This way, if the information in the box is challenged, we will be able to cite something. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the infobox and navbox info. A possible link would be to: List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict. It looks like Ynhockey beat me to it, and has added the link to the template title.

There are many images in military conflict infoboxes. See Template:Infobox Military Conflict. See the many articles it is used in: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Military Conflict. See also the many templates listed at Category:Military infobox templates and Category:War and conflict templates. Some of them have images too. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't an infobox, it's a navigation box. Two completely different things. I've seen images in navboxes too, but they're always tiny and unobtrusive, and always highly relevant to the content. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the distinction between navbox and infobox in this case is a bit artificial, and I think the images are relevant to the subject. So I agree with Timeshifter that we should leave them.

What about sources? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is 'artificial'. Infoboxes are supposed to have images, and every infobox on Wikipedia has a slot for an image at the top. Navigation boxes, on the other hand, do not. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is artificial is that most of the villages do not have articles. So there is nowhere to navigate to. But, as I said before, the images aren't the real problem here, the real problem here is that the box contains original information (the names of the villages) with no supporting documentation. Where is the source for this list of villages? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Here is another navigation template with images:

Template:Holy sites in Judaism

It is in many articles, sometimes in the open state. See its "what links here" link. Here is one article with the template: Rachel's Tomb. The template is open there. I think it is open there because there is only one show/hide template on that article page. I don't know for sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The only reason that the villages don't all (?) have articles is that there is rampant denialism going on. The Palestinians own accounts of what happened (collected fairly carefully at places such as PalestineRemembered.com) are condemned by people who would be outraged if POV editors harassed the stories of other victims, in the project or out of it. I think we should proceed as if "dependable" sources for details on these villages will be found and will be inserted. (Incidentally, I'm not brave enough to claim that PR.com is currently an RS, only that much of the information has been collected and could almost certainly be inserted right now if we we were working to policy. Kicking bad sources out of the project is currently more important than opening the door to good ones). PR^talk 10:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the source for this list is PalestineRemembered.com, which you do not consider a reliable source? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that I have an aversion to unreliable sources so strong that I don't even check www.palestineremembered.com for reliability. However, it (or something like it) is the only place we're going to get details of most of the depopulated villages, and it's to such sources we need to look. When the project operates consistent principles as regards reliable sources, we'll toss out 100s of the ones we're using and allow in either PR.com, or a more careful version of the same thing. It would be outrageous if we fail to carry on with the parts of this project we are allowed to get on with simply because of the severe prejudice that exists against these particular victims and their testimony. PR^talk 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't think I understand what you are saying. Is this an accurate summary?

• You have a strong aversion to unreliable sources.

• You consider PR.com to be an unreliable source.

• PR.com is the source of this list.

• But since PR.com is the only source we have, we should accept it.

Is that what you are saying? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent). I have no idea which villages were depopulated during the time period around the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Are there before and after maps with enough detail? This might be correlated with lists from other sites. Some of the villages may no longer be labeled on the maps after the war. What did PalestineRemembered.com use as sources for its info? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

At first, my comment was that the list requires a source. However, now that I read over the list I can identify errors, based on my personal knowledge, which suggest that the list is inaccurate and unreliable. At least three villages in the neighborhood where I live were depopulated in or before 1948 and are not mentioned in the list (Yehudiya, Feja and Safariya). Also, at least two villages - Dayr Rafat, in the Jerusalem area, and Wadi 'Ara in the Haifa district - are listed but were not depopulated (they are still inhabited, and have been continuously since 1948).

So, in the absence of a reference, and in light of the known inaccuracies, I think we need to do some serious thinking about the reliability of this list and its inclusion in the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Later: I see that Feja and Safariya are listed, erroneously in the Jaffa district, instead of the Ramle district. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

... and several days later: I seem to have gone off half cocked. After some further checking, it turns out that PR.com is right and I am wrong. Yehudiya is listed, under the name of Abbasiya. I thought the village of Wadi 'Ara referred to the village of 'Ara, which was not depopulated in the war. Wadi 'Ara refers to a different place, which is where Kibbutz Barkay is now located. And Dayr Rafat was indeed depopulated in 1948; the people who live there now, it seems, moved into the abandoned village after the war (I still have to verify this). So, while PR.com may not be a reliable source, it is more reliable than I am.

There is plenty that is fishy about the information on the site - for example, according to http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/Wadi-%27Ara/index.html, the population of the town of Wadi 'Ara grew in three years, from 1945 to 1948, from 230 to 4267. This statistic comes from one of the sources cited at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Bibliography.html, though it is impossible to know from the webpage from which. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

color

Is it at all possible for us to change the color scheme? Red on yellow is very visually distracting. The Squicks (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

coll..or not

It is really extremely inconvenient to have this template collapsed for those of us who work on the 1948-villages...both Tiamut and myself (who are the editors who, beside Al Ameer son, who have worked most on them) have "uncollapsed" it. Yes; I *know* it is not a very pretty template at the moment (with all its red links)...but this is a work very much in progress, so please bear over with it. I navigate with the help of this template all the time... Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed this again at least temporarily, because it appears on pages such as Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, and it looks inappropriate there as a huge template. I tried collapsing that individual one, but it didn't work. I typed {{Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War|state=collapsed}} but it didn't work. Does anyone know what needs to be typed on individual pages to collapse/uncollapse? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, someone e-mailed me with how to fix this, so the default should now be uncollapsed, but it can be changed on individual pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This isnt pretty, however you can force the table to display using the following user style:

.navbox_pavdd1948pw * table { display: block !important }
.navbox_pavdd1948pw * table tr { display: block !important }

I have only tested it in Firefox. Maybe someone can figure out how to make it a bit less ugly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone mind if I move this to al-Nakba? The phrase gets 2.3 million hits on Google and has passed into the English language. It's much clearer than the current very long title, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

some comments-

• "Nakba" vs 1948 Palestine War: I have no strong opinions about this. There are good arguments for both positions. I would like to say, however, the the Nakba-term is not that well known in all parts of the world, eg, around my parts of the world (=Scandinavia) I would be very surprised if as many as 10, or 20% of the local population would know the general meaning of the word. In fact, it has only been the last few months that I have heard the word mentioned in main-stream media; this due to the efforts of the right-wing Israeli politicians to ban "Nakba-day". (These politicians have done more to spread knowledge of the word than anyone else, something I suspect was *not* their intention...:-D )
• there are some minor style-issues I will perhaps change in the template (if I have time)...but this is no big deal....anyone feel free to reverse any such edits I might make..
• the *only* issue I feel strongly about here, is (as I have said above) that the template should, as default, stay uncollapsed. For me there are just three issues that are important regarding this template, and that is practicality, practicality, and...practicality..... Huldra (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • PS: it is really unnecessary to add a "See also" section with link to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ...as that article is linked in the template-headings. But again; no big deal. Huldra (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld stubs

A little while ago stubs were created for all of the missing articles in this cluster. The result was that all articles on this template become the same colour, blue, which meant that it was difficult for contributors to see at a glance whether an article had already been developed. One solution is to use the user preference to enable a different colour for small articles, and a similar solution is possible with the PAGESIZE function. (see /sandbox) The current solution (added Aug. 19) is to add a CSS class to each "stub" article, like so:

{{span2|class=Blofeld_stub|[[page name]]}}

This is removed when the page has been expanded. e.g. [1]

To apply a different colour to these stubs, add the following to your stylesheet:

.Blofeld_stub a { text-decoration: none; color: Coral; } 

In that example, "Coral" can be replaced with any web colour. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Length?

Comment: This navbox looks like it has turned into a list article. IMHO, navboxes should be relatively short, providing links to the major articles related to a topic, with those articles in turn linking to more details. It may be that this topic needs more higher-level articles that this navbox can use.

My general rule of thumb is that a navbox should ideally contain no more than a dozen lines of text and definitely no more than 20. Beyond that point the navbox is more of a distraction than a help.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mcorazao, In general I agree with you. However, (as has been discussed above): for those of us who work in the area, this template is extremely convenient. It enables us to easily jump between the different villages, something which is often needed (as the history of one place is often shared with another). At the moment, the work on the 1948-villages is very much a "work in progress", and this template is excellent for that.

Having said that; I think most of us "regulars" would be quite happy have, say, the template in a "collapsed" state, *when* most of the work is done. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Up to you. I would urge you to consider, though, that the navboxes are supposed to be for the benefit of the reader, not the editors. Making the navbox default to collapsed is fine, but still when the reader opens it up it should still not be too hard to read (i.e. for a reader completely unfamiliar with the topic it should provide a useful guide to learning more).

Anyway, do what you think is best. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

The very title of this article is loaded with POV implications. "Depopulation" is hardly an accepted fact by historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.134.250 (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hamlets instead of villages

I looked at almost all the names in this template and although i didn't count, i got the perception that there were more hamlets than villages. Should the title be changed to reflect this? 89.242.82.200 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No. This template follows closely the 1992-book of Walid Khalidi: "All that remains". And the subtitle of that book is: "The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948." Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blue color?

The main color was changed by an IP on the 15th sept here, with the edit-line "(per wp:deviations)".

We have previously discussed this (with Al Ameer son, if I recall), and we generally agreed that green was a good solution, as it matched the color of the info-box.

However, I do not know if it makes if more difficult to read for people with color-blindness, or similar visual impairments?

If the change is only done because "blue is standard", then I oppose it, and suggest we return to the whole-green solution. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Almost three weeks, and no response. I am changing it back, cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that per WP:Deviations the greenish should be removed. It looks more professional to have one consistent style. Africa boxes in black, China in yellow, American Indians in Red? Androoox (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Atlit

Why is not Atlit, district of Haifa, included in the template? Morris includes it (see User:Huldra/Morris-list village #387), and Khalidi includes it. If there are no protest, I will include it in the near future. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

...and "near future" was today! Huldra (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Change "War" to lower case letters

"War" in the main article's title (1948 Palestine war) has lower case letters so I think this template's title should change to that too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Template colour scheme

@Huldra, Dan Murphy, and Pigsonthewing: Would it be OK if we brightened the background colour of headers slightly to #B0CF63 ( Arab towns and villages depopulated ; compare with the existing  Arab towns and villages depopulated ) to achieve WCAG AA compliance, which is required by WP:COLOUR? I'd also be happy to update associated templates to use the new colour. Alakzi (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. Required by WP:COLOR, which is a guideline and cannot be overridden by local consensus. Even ignoring that, this is such a small change in color that it should be entirely uncontroversial. ~ Rob^Talk 01:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. Even a slightly lighter colour would be ok if the hue still matches. Incidentally, there seems to be a contradiction in the policy pages. WP:Local consensus makes no distinction between policies and guidelines, but WP:Policies and guidelines says of guidelines, but not of policies, that "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." That sentence says how guidelines have always been regarded in my experience, and this is the first time in my 11 years as an administrator that I recall anyone suggesting that guidelines can't have local exceptions. I'll raise this issue on the policy talk page. Zero^talk 03:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: My interpretation of WP:Local consensus is that guidelines can have local exceptions, but not based on a consensus developed locally. In other words, a single WikiProject can't decide to ignore guidelines, but the community in general can decide that guidelines do not apply locally. I've not been around for long, so I don't know if this matches with precedent, but it's what makes the most sense to me based on the wording and, well, common sense. This isn't to suggest my interpretation is correct, just explaining where I'm coming from. ~ Rob^Talk 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The WMF discrimination policy explicitly states that it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. It is not a normal guideline. Zero^talk 09:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, It needs to be lighter still (or alternatively turned into a border rather than a background), to achieve AAA, as required by WP:COLOUR. I wonder if Huldra has ever even looked at that page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; we do not normally make concessions to the detriment of WP:COLOUR for plain decorative use in headers. #DCF49F is AAA-compliant:  Arab towns and villages depopulated . Alakzi (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that Dan Murphy has restored the inaccessible colour scheme, which needs to be removed, ASAP, in order to comply with WCAG web accessibility guidelines, our own MoS, and the aforesaid WMF discrimination policy. Dan: since you gave no edits summary, perhaps you can explain here why you think act as though it is unimportant that people with limited visual abiities not be able to use this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm using Snook's color contrast check with the link color #0645AD. Is that right? I think we can find a suitable colour with AAA compliance. Give me a little while to discuss it with some people who care about the hue. In this topic everything is sensitive, even tiny color differences. Zero^talk 09:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Did you not see that we already have one, above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw, but the hue is important. For example D4F49F is complaint and better, but I'm still looking. Zero^talk 10:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000: I hope that was "compliant" and not "complaint"?

User:Alakzi: I am perfectly fine with the change you did, here, or any similar colour. Btw, *no-one*, AFAIK, is using the green colour to navigate; the important issue in this template is  the difference between "Blofeld-stubs" and non-Blofeld-stubs; and that is fixed by each individual editor by their stylesheets, see above, under Template_talk:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Blofeld_stubs.

I have my preferences for that in User:Huldra/monobook.css; anyone else can have their own preferences in their own monobook.css-files. Huldra (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Zero0000: Any progress? Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I went with D4F49F. We'll see who complains. If the masses demand a darker green, I'll compensate by making the link colors darker. Zero^talk 07:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I do! Horrible, horrible color, I can hardly look at it...I need sun-glasses (on top of my computer-glasses?!) to look at it..Huldra (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Then please suggest an alternative. As per WMF's non-discrimination policy, the color must be changed. It's a matter of what it's changed to. ~ Rob^Talk 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I´ll try, but I really don´t "see" the problem (pun intended): no-one, AFAIK uses the green colour here for navigation. As I mentioned above, the colours used for navigation are fixed by each editor in their monobook.css. Why this religious fervour for something which have zero consequences, even for the colour-blind? Could somebody please explain that to me? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: With darker colors, those with vision difficulties (cataracts, partial blindness, etc.) often cannot easily see the text against a similar background color. A formula is used to measure the "contrast" of the two colors to ensure that visually impaired individuals can access the information in the text. In this case, the contrast is too low and does not rise to the AAA level required wherever feasible. While you may be able to see it find, that's perfectly expected. The contrast isn't for you; it's for those with visual disabilities. Consider how frustrated you'd be if you couldn't see any of the labels on this template because other editors simply liked one shade better than another just because of visual appeal. ~ Rob^Talk 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for the explanation, I would hope that we could find some AAA scheme which do not tire my eyes. Those very glaring, almost neon-like colours do. I work on these villages, with this template sometimes hours on end: I simply could not do that if the template has very glaring colours, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I don't edit templates much. Is there a preferred way to change link colors? If the unvisited color was changed to the current visited color, and the visited color was changed to black, much darker shades of green would be AAA-compliant. If the change only happens where the background is green, most users wouldn't notice. Zero^talk 00:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Link ..just placing it handy, to keep experimenting, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Alakzi would be a better person to ask, but I think the consensus above is against changing link colors here. Oops, confused this with another discussion. Given the contentious nature of this topic area, I have no objection to slightly altering link colors. They should remain a shade of blue and significantly different than black to remain identifiable as a link. My recommendation would making the link color the "already clicked" color all the time. ~ Rob^Talk 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing the colour of links is discouraged, because their distinctive colour is the only cue to the fact that they are - in fact - links. If they were black, they'd be confused with running text, and if they were a darker shade of blue, they'd be confused with visited links. The latter is not tragic, but it still best be avoided. Alakzi (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on the principle. But we can leverage human color perception just a tiny bit. When text is placed on a dark background, it looks lighter. So we can make it a bit darker without most people noticing. Here is an example that can be tweaked. The first line shows the standard link colors on a white background, and the second line is a proposal that meets AAA compliance. I think it looks more or less the same.

 linkname   visitedlink 

 linkname   visitedlink 

Zero^talk 10:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but we can't change the colour for visited; an inline style overwrites link colours in all states. Alakzi (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, drat, back to square 0. Zero^talk 11:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What about C4F8AE or C5FF98 as background colour, are they AAA? They are still awfully bright, but I might not have to wear shades....Please tell me if they are ok; and I´ll test it out, if it is ok with you all, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Both of those are AAA. The first is better, no? Zero^talk 22:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree, will change it to that, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody know how/where to find the colour -numbers for "From today's featured article"-part of the front page? I assume those colours have been vetted as AAA. Both those colours are quite ok, I think: a light green background and slightly darker green headlines. Better than present? Hmm; we of course have the added complexity of possibly two colours on each village.....Huldra (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The darker one is #CEF2E0. The lighter one is #F5FFFA. To me the darker one looks blue on my external display and green on my Mac retina display. Also note that the darker one has a thin border that is even darker; we could do that if we like. Zero^talk 08:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What about CEF4C8 ? Has less blue in it, but isn´t has "sharp" as the present? Huldra (talk)

It is allowed, but try CEF4B6 with even less blue. Zero^talk 00:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree; more green, an less "glaring" than the former one, have changed it. Btw, when we finally settle down on the most suitable green-colour, then we really ought to update the green-colour in the info-box, too. Presently they are two distinct hues of green, which isn´t very nice. But I have *no* idea as to how-where to edit the info-box? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Custom color

Since the color of other elements has changed, and some articles have multiple nav boxes on the bottom (this one green, others default - leading to jarring mismatches) - I've removed the custom color from this one. We also have to think about accessibility per MOS:COLOR (and green is an issue in regards to color blindness) and in general we shouldn't be overriding elements per MOS:DEVIATIONS. Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Opposite: change the infobox template back to what it was. And the colourblindness ha been dealt with, as you have already been made aware off, Icewhiz, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Colorblindness is still an issue on clicked links (depending on the color scheme of the browser using this). There is no compelling reason, other than personal preference, for this template to be colored anything other than default. MOS:DEVIATIONS is policy. Icewhiz (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't pretend to be stupid. You know as well as I do that this isn't "only" about "personal preference", read eg Blue in Judaism, Green in Islam, or the latest Andrew Petersen book. And what colorblind issues havent been dealt with? Huldra (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of these locations weren't Islamic - there's little reason to color Christian villages green. Furthermore, they are all Israeli today. The default color of a purplish blue (with dark font) is really very different from Israeli dark blue (with white font). And finally - Wikipedia shouldn't be color coding location by ethnicity. We have a default color scheme - we should stick to it. Icewhiz (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of colorblindness - if someone's clicked link color is with a reddish hue (a link in the edit history) - something that is a browser preference (set for most sites that do not have green backgrounds) - the clicked link will be an issue for green/red color blind people (the major form of color blindness). Icewhiz (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you, Icewhiz, has AFAIK, never ever edited, or added anything significant to any of these articles, I must say, your concern is most touching, And the color blindness issue was addressed above, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have edited a few of these articles - please also see WP:OWN. You improved the color blindness situation - however on custom browser settings (not geared for the irregular overridden green background) this still may be an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Custom browser settings", my goodness, don't you have something to do better than writing such rubbish? Zero^talk 01:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Many people use Light-on-dark color schemes - either browser level or via custom CSSes for Wikimedia. I personally favor green in black in many applications. When you set a custom forced background for a specific template (assuming use of the dark on light vector scheme) - you make life difficult (either your overridden value looks bad, or it needs to be overridden).Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There seems to have been a discussion above that resulted in a consensus for the current scheme, which is fully compliant with all accessibility standards that we have. I agree with that consensus. nableezy - 20:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct, it is fully compliant. People can change their personal defaults to be anything they like (even white on white) but if they conflict with the Wikipedia accessibility standards it is their own problem. Zero^talk 04:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

While the discussion between Huldra and Zero0000 may in the section above (after other users left) may have reached a color meeting WP:COLOR's AAA requirements, it runs foul of MOS:DEVIATIONS which states that "In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes". By setting this with a hard-coded value - we are preventing "it allows users with very specific needs to change the color schemes in their own style sheet (Special:MyPage/skin.css, or their browser's style sheet). For example, a style sheet at Wikipedia:Style sheets for visually impaired users provides higher contrast backgrounds for navboxes. The problem is that when the default site-wide classes are overridden, it makes it far more difficult for an individual to choose his/her own theme.". Users that require, due to disability, a high-contrast low ambient light setting should be able to do so without local inline style attributes in the way - this is not "their own problem".Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand how the custom CSSs work. The style sheet at Wikipedia:Style sheets for visually impaired users does override the color specifications for this navbox. I'm looking at it. Zero^talk 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Its more than just Zero and Huldra up there. Again, I agree with the standing consensus on this. If you can demonstrate that consensus has changed by all means do that. However, as it stands, the current color scheme has consensus, and your change does not. Besides being based on completely made up assertions. nableezy - 02:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Why some and not the others

Hi Huldra (others feel free to answer too !). I'm starting to translate the articles that are included in this template into French and I'm asking myself a few questions about why some places are included in the template and others are not. The template does include Lydda and Ramle but not Safed or al-Majdal (Ashkelon), is there a reason for that?

Side note : a made a few remarks on Talk:Yazur#Improvements_to_the_article if anyone is interested.--Kimdime (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have answered you (or tried to), on fr.wp, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)