Talk:Ramle Subdistrict, Mandatory Palestine

text of the article
The list is in the text of the article and the template, but it needs to be in the text of the article so that this article can be expanded with a small sentence on each of the villages. But why exactly do you care LOTRQ? How many depopulated Palestinian village articles have you worked on? Or is this just a passing interest? Either way, please do not just blank the text of the article.  nableezy  - 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a small or large sentence on each of the villages - but there's no reason to create an unsightly and redundant duplication of lists in order to do this. And kindly keep personal commentary out of talk pages. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is not the text of the article, one is not "redundant" to the other.  nableezy  - 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Semantics aside, we have two identical lists, one on top of the other, which together make up more than 2/3 of the article. This is, as I wrote, an unsightly and redundant duplication of lists, that serves no real purpose. There's nothing to prevent the creation of an entry for each locality in the district based on one list or the other, but there's no point in having them both. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It isnt semantics, but however you want to ignore me feel free.  nableezy  - 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is semantics. As the page is laid out, there's one list under the heading 'Depopulated settlements", and right below it, an identical list, under the heading 'Arab localities depopulated..". From an wiki markup perspective, they are different elements, but from a textual perspective, as well as an overall article quality perspective, they are two identical lists, whose dual existence serves no apparent purpose. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the artilce
what we should be striving for is something similar to District of Acre - a history of the sub-district, it's borders, etc..., with a navigation template that allows access to the individual locality's articles. There's more to the district than a list of depopulated settlements. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes we should.  nableezy  - 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And you will note there is no duplicate list there... LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That article isnt perfect, I was more saying yes we should in that we should have a history of the sub-district and its borders and whatever else. But the villages should also be covered in the text of the article.  nableezy  - 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All the localities should be (briefly) covered in the article - including ones that continue to exist. There's more to the district than a list of the depopulated settlements. But "being covered" means more than being listed twice, in an identical fashion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)