Talk:West Bank (disambiguation)

"West Bank of the River Severn, Welsh-occupied Monmouthshire"

This appears to be a prank edit. I have not been able to find any sources that refer to Monmouthshire as "Welsh-occupied" or as the "West Bank of the River Severn", so I have removed it for now. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Westbank"

Westbank is under discussion, see talk:Westbank, British Columbia -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank of Jordan

The West Bank geographic area was coined after the unilaterally annexed-West Bank of Jordan district of the Kingdom of Jordan (1948-1967). The district article is same as the Occupation of the West Bank by Jordan article, thus not including it is a complete nonsense. Jordan withdrew the claim of the West Bank as part of their territory only in 1988, thus making this even more notable.GreyShark (dibra) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This lists what refers to the "West Bank". The Palestinian area is one of them. That doesn't mean that any event or history that has taken place there is what the term refers to, including the Israeli occupation that is still ongoing. Similiary, when one refers to Gaza, it doesn't mean it can refer to any event that has happened in the city or area like the Egyptian or Israeli occupation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the occupation and annexation, not the district too as you are now saying. What you did and you are not mentioning above is that you changed the redirect of "West Bank of Jordan" from "West Bank" to the article "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" on 2 March. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, as told before and last on my edit summary, you also pipelinked to force it in. Read about WP:PIPING. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRISZOOM, GreyShark, we can (and should) include it in this dab as a historical area if it was known as "West Bank". Done. If not, it can go in the see also as a WP:PTM. As there are hatnotes on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC article, it could be argued that their listing isn't so important for navigation, also favouring the see also section. In any case, worth checking WP:MOSDAB as this dab didn't have the primary correctly listed. Fixed. Widefox; talk 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same area today. The article Jordanian occupation of the West Bank is, as can be seen on the title, about the occupation and not some district. There is nothing about that. Piping is not allowed in DAB's. If the article is also about the district, it could be added but again, then the piping must be done correctly. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we have two articles (irrespective of overlapping / identical boundaries) with the ambiguous term "West Bank" (West Bank and West Bank of Jordan). There is no piping used in the dab, so piping is not relevant. WP:DABREDIR is used, which uses the redirect at West Bank of Jordan (which satisfies the both conditions of DABREDIR). That redirect previously had a target of West Bank, but now goes to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank.

Additionally, it would seem other editors consider disambiguation necessary due to the hatnote at West Bank directing to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. With that in mind, you may want to gain WP:consensus before changing these, maybe ask for more opinions at the dab project. Widefox; talk 09:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then it seems fine. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRISZOOM Re [1] I only just piped the body link, and then you've removed it. Third time, please read WP:MOSDAB before making any more dab edits, as this is disruptive. Per my edit summary, US is fine, although not needed anymore. Widefox; talk 12:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see, I didn't notice what you were piping. Good then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entries and wording

Per my edit summary undo of [2]:

West Bank "forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories." is straight from the article, so make any changes/updates there first - dabs just follow article wording
West Bank of Jordan "and unilaterally annexed district of" . Ditto, I don't see a unilateral in there, but we could use "annexed", I just kept to the lede. Wording suggestions welcome as it wasn't a straight copy
Judea and Samaria Area From the article "Judea and Samaria region" shall be identical in meaning for all purposes to the term "the West Bank Region"" - why does this need removing?

Widefox; talk 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source!GreyShark (dibra) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct for articles. Dabs aren't articles. They do follow WP. Per the first line of WP:DABYESNO or WP:MOSDAB "Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching." Your desired changes may be good, can you reason here so we can work it out? There's no doubt some wording on the second and third that could be improved. Widefox; talk 20:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]