Category talk:Zionist political violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Discussion elsewhere[edit]

Please see:

"See also" section[edit]

See [1]. Jayjg removed the "See also" section with this edit summary:

categories don't have "see also" section, and the catmain was incorrect

"See also" sections are common in categories. For example; see Template:Cat see also

There is more info at: meta:Help:Category#"See also" for categories

{{Catmain}} created a link to Zionist terrorism in the form of

"The main article for this category is Zionist terrorism."

Zionist terrorism redirects to Zionist political violence. Click Zionist terrorism to see what I mean. So I moved the Zionist political violence link to the "see also" section.--Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not, in fact, "common", aren't done the way you did them, and the See Alsos were not helpful in any event. The Template is supposed to be used as you see in Category:The Beatles albums, which has a see also to Category:The Beatles songs, not for wildly different categories. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) They are very common. And the fact that you removed all the "see also" links speaks volumes. Here is the list of links you removed:

See also:

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists and its talk subsection on Category:Zionist terrorism. All the above links were discussed there. "See also" links are supposed to go to clarifying and related articles and categories. They help readers figure out category inclusion rules, and the meaning of category names. They help readers find what they are looking for.

I guess I will have to take this to an admin notice board since we have wildly different experiences in the uses of "see also" lists in categories. I have thousands of edits in categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat see also, which you brought as evidence, is, as I pointed out, used for overlapping categories, not as a standard article "See also" with links to various articles. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, why did you remove all the "See also" links. As I said, it speaks volumes. Why not leave the category links? Many people do not use the template. The template is an aid. It is not required. And it does not work with articles. So it is easier just to make a list of "See also" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide examples. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look around at enough categories, and you will soon see plenty of examples. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will? I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia. Please provide examples. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many examples over 3 years of editing. Please do the work of looking around, and pay attention to what is in the many "see also" lists on category pages. Only a little bit ago you said "categories don't have 'see also' section". So you haven't been paying attention since there are templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this nonsense. You claim that "See also" sections in categories are "very common". Provide examples. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. See my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around, and found "See also" sections about 30 categories, and all (unsurprisingly) added in the past week by you. Please don't add "See also" sections to categories again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits you have over 65,000 edits. I am listed there with around 15,000 edits. Earlier in this talk thread you said concerning 'see also' links "I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia." Maybe this is because you see and remember only what you want to see and remember? Click the "what links here" links for Template:Cat see also, Template:CatRel, and Template:See also cat. Also see the over 23,000 results from this Google category search for "see also":
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22 --Timeshifter (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category pages should not feature "See also" sections. Please stop adding See also sections to category pages. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are doing this in tens of category pages. I have given you some pointers in your talk page: See [2] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect, as is Jayjg. Please see:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#"See also" section and please stop doing mass reversions. As I pointed out to you at the above link nearly all the "see also" links I added met your own criteria that you laid out there. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm quite correct, as that section shows. Please stop doing mass insertions of non-standard, incorrect, "See also" sections into categories. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing novel about "see also" links. See
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22
Nearly all the "see also" links you removed from around 20 categories consisted solely of a few related category links. This is extremely common in categories. Most people don't use the templates. You did not even know about the templates until I told you of them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all categories that have "See alsos" to other categories, not to articles, as you inserted. Show examples of Categories with "See also" sections that link to articles, formatted as a standard article "See also" section. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a "see also" list has links to clarifying articles such as definitions of terrorism. It is not frequent, but you are the first person I have seen to get so worked up over article links. A few clarifying article links are sometimes found in an intro paragraph, or in an intro template such as {{Terrorism category definition}} and {{Terrorist category definition}}. This is common.
But in most of the 20 category pages where you removed "see also" lists there were no article links. If you don't like article links, then you should remove just the article links, or ask that they put in the context of an intro inclusion paragraph or template explaining inclusion rules. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show examples of Categories with "See also" sections that are formatted as a standard article "See also" sections. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any. Articles use headers. Categories commonly use the 2 words "See also" followed by the category links in a horizontal line or in a vertical list. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the formatting of "see also" links you requested that we avoid duplicate talk page discussions, Jayjg. In order to avoid duplication on multiple talk pages please see the links to many examples of "see also" links in various vertical list formats at:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#"See also" lists in vertical format on many category pages
People can see the preceding discussion here:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#"See also" section --Timeshifter (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King David Hotel[edit]

As I understand it, a terrorist attack needs to be an attack on civilian, not an attack on a legitimate military target. The King David Hotel, operating at that time not as a hotel but as the location of the Mandate's military headquarters should therefore not be included in this catagory. Thought? Oboler (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King David Hotel bombing. I think that its categorization would be better discussed at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism in order to consolidate discussion about Irgun-related categorization. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... this is turning into a bit of a mess. I'll look over at that page two... though when listing a particular incident I don't believe it is sufficient to resolve the question of whether the group concerned can be regarded as a terrorist group, it is also necisary to show that the attack in question took place against civilians and not a military objective. Oboler (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category move[edit]

The discussion was closed as rename. But they weren't moved yet. @LaundryPizza03 @JJMC89. Nasbue chesno (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has not instructed the bot to do it yet. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Zionist_political_violence&oldid=1212876603"