Template talk:Israel-geo-stub

Category for this template
This template creates the articles in Category:Israel geography stubs, which is sub-category of Category:Israel-related stubs. Thanks. IZAK 04:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This image really needs to be changed. Palmiro | Talk 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. CG 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made two changes to the image which should clear any POV issues. Next time though, please ask first before removing (on my talk page). Thankfully Ramallite did just that. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't right either. How can Ofra or Perea for instance, be linked to Israel-geo now that it's not included in the map on the template icon? I suggest not using this category stub at all, if no consensus can be found on an NPOV icon. You've de factoed removed the geography of Judea and Samaria from Israel. Let's use {MEast-geo-stub}.

--Shuki 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from Image talk:Israel geostub icon.png


 * Does it matter that much? The flag alone looks plain and doesn't let one immediately see whether it's a regular Israel-stub, Israel-politicial-stub, Israel-bio-stub or Israle-geo-stub. Therefore, a map is an obvious way to differentiate (like in Africa-geo-stub, etc). POV accusations on including the West Bank do show that many Wikipedians prefer NPOV over quality, but on the other hand if I were a Palestinian I'd probably do the same (not sure how many of them are Palestinians). So, I suggest leaving it as is - it's probably not important if a dozen or two articles are outside the map - maybe we should just work on expanding them :) -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, strongly. The 'new' slim map is also POV. The issue is not only about the non-greenline articles. IMO, the globe icon would be better than the slim map, though the simple flag seems the most NPOV. --Shuki 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As it clearly states at the top of the list of stub types: ''Several of the stub categories relate to controversial issues For this reason, many of the icons have been chosen carefully so as not to cause offense or appear biased. If you wish to change any stub icon, please clear the icon change at both WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria and at any WikiProject associated with the stub category first.'' The icon was discussed for a long time before this stub template was created. The flag is deliberately used rather than any map where there is any dispute about territorial boundaries. DO NOT change it for a map, since this is exactly the kind of meaningless debate that emerges. If there is doubt as to whether an article should be marked with the israel-geo-stub or the palestine-geo-stub, use both. In the case of Israeli settlements on the West Bank they are - by definition - Israeli, and should use Israel-geo-stub. If they are neither Palestinian not Israeli, use MEast-geo-stub. If israeli geo-stubs are deliberately being moved from the Israel geography stubs category for no reason other than the icon not being liked then the whole existence of a separate Israel geography stubs category is drawn into question. Why have it if israel places are being moved from it? Perhaps it would be better to delete it... Grutness...wha?  10:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: as to the fact that you can't see at a glance whether the article is a israel-stub, israel-geo-stub or israel-bio-stub just by looking at the template - that is completely irrelevant. Firstly, you can look at the text of the article - it should be clear from that if its abou a person, a place or something else. Secondly, when editors are looking for articles to expand, they dont look at the template - they look in the category. The icon could have anything on it but the articles will still go into . Grutness...wha?  01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)