Talk:Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Unexplained Rarelibra revert?

Hey Rarelibra. Why did you revert those recent changes? I guess I didn't know anyone was watching the article but the main change was suggested here on my talk page by User:Al Ameer son. He (?) thinks that the image I removed wasn't that great (he suggested I remove it.) Thus I removed it, but I was then unhappy with the formatting/layout of the article and thus I removed the overpowering Palestine Politics template. --Abnn 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates are nice and add to the articles they are on for all countries (see wikiproject for more). They also aid in quick navigation for the user, as many times it is confusing to find the administrative articles in the main. As for the map, I guess I am offended that it is supposed to 'not be that great'. If the other person is the creator of the existing image, he is rude to offer up such criticism. What do YOU think of the map I added? Why can't there be two of them? Many articles include two. ??? Thank you. Rarelibra 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the one who created the map I removed. I apologize and I should watch myself more carefully. It was my paraphrase to say that the image "wasn't that great", Al Ameer son's original criticism was that the other image preferred because it was "more accurate on the administrative borders and administative areas." I understand the templates are useful, but you have to admit that this article looks really pretty ugly in its current state and part of the reason was because of the template forcing us to left justify the images. Maybe the proper solution to the current ugliness of this article is to add more text in the article rather than removing images or the templates. I'll leave you and Al Ameer son to fight over the images as I don't have strong feelings either way and I do appreciate your hard work on the image, I couldn't have made it, that's forsure. --Abnn 03:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
{{combi}}! Neato! I learn something new every day. --Abnn 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rarelibra, I apologized if I offended you, but dont you think the map is unnecessary since the above map is more accurate on the administrative borders and Israeli/Palestinian areas. If you really want to keep it, what we can do is expand on the article like Abnn said, with text and then I guess it wouldn't be a problem keeping it there. - Al Ameer son

[edit] Two new Governorate templates

Flag of Palestine
Gaza Strip
Palestinian territories
v • d • e
Local Government in the West Bank
v • d • e

--Abnn 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. Rarelibra 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried incorporating these in the article, but they did not flow well. If someone knows how to incorporate them so they look good, they would be a good alternative or supplement to the current maps. The only advantage of the maps incorporating both West Bank and Gaza is that they show the distance and scale between the two territories. (actually, if they are being shown in accurate scale, showing Israel's borders too would be helpful) --JWB 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last couple days of image play

So let me get this straight... JWB rearranged the maps back on 7/2/2007 at 17:01 to

then all this nonsense happened with making the images incredibly large for "14 and 15 inch screens", as well as placing them at the bottom of the article, then JWB rearranged the maps back on 7/2/2007 at 19:30 to

so why did we have all this nonsense about the incredibly large sizing and replacement to the bottom of the article in the first place? Next time, please discuss here before attempt such radical edits, Timeshifter. Thank you. Rarelibra 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think one valid issue is that the labels on the maps are hard to read at small sizes. One solution would be redoing the images with larger type. The Gaza labels would have to be outside the Gaza governorates themselves, but this is OK. --JWB 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It would be nice if the label text was a little bit larger on both maps. Especially on the multicolor map. Then the 300-pixel-wide images would work better on the left side of the article, and not have to clicked and enlarged in order to clearly read them. --Timeshifter 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority

Hi. Try narrowing your browser window to see the problem with putting the image in floating alignment with text and sidebars wrapping around to the right. It doesn't work. They overlap. That is why I moved the images down to the bottom of the page.

And since the images are farther down, there is no reason not to show one of them at a large enough size to be able to read the text on it.

By the way, I cropped your great image so that the horizontal scroll bar does not show up when the image is shown at larger sizes. --Timeshifter 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason - the images are way too large at that scale. They overtake the focus of the article. Leave them at the current size, thank you. Rarelibra 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Your image uses much fewer kilobytes at medium-large sizes, and the text is readable at those sizes. So it should be at a larger size than the other one. The other image uses 77 kilobytes at only 300 pixels wide.
I compromised and made your image a little smaller. 450 pixels wide (54 kilobytes) is about as small as it can get and still be readable without expanding it. It does not overtake the focus of the article, because it IS the focus of the article. And when it is placed at the bottom of the page, it is not the first thing seen anyway. The other image is a bonus image, and so it should be left at default thumbnail size, where it uses only 37 kilobytes.--Timeshifter 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like JWB came up with a solution. JWB narrowed the tables and sidebar enough so that the 300-pixel-wide images do not cause an overlap problem at laptop screen sizes. And if people squint they can read the text on the maps. :) --Timeshifter 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No compromise was necessary when you stop and consider that maps are ACCESSORIES to the articles. The article, in this case, is about the governorates of the Palestinian National Authority. The maps help give the reader a 'picture' to see things more clear. Don't ever confuse the article for the map - as your statement of "it IS the focus" suggests. Rarelibra 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Images do not overtake the focus of an article when the image is about the article. The images were not too large for the article at any of the sizes I was using. There is no rule against using an image at larger than the 300-pixel-wide setting you used.
And you are not paying attention to my point about the kilobytes used. That is very important to dialup users. It is better to use your image at an adequate size to begin with. Then the dialup users do not have to click and enlarge that image. That makes for even longer load times for them, and multiple clicks. The other image should be left at thumbnail size, because of the kilobyte problem, and because it truly is an ACCESSORY to the other image.
Please try understanding the points of those communicating with you, rather than sounding so condescending. It grates, especially when the person you are talking to has been editing at wikipedia for a couple years. --Timeshifter 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who started with a condescending approach. Making the image 700px IS too big. It becomes bigger than the article itself. Also, it is not inconsiderate to dial-up users to have thumbnail images - rather, it is in keeping with the layout of the article. Trust me on this one. If you go around making images 700px, there is a 99.99% chance that the same images will be reduced back in size (and I haven't checked your history). I don't wish to argue with you on the semantics of dial-up. Thumbnail images are meant to be clicked on for better detail - if someone is dialing up I'm quite sure they understand this. It is not in the design of an article to make images so large as to perfectly load just for dialup users - in context, imagine the many more broadband users who see this gigantic image that overtakes the entire article. Not good. Rarelibra 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"gigantic image". Please ease up on the hyperbole. A 450-pixel-wide image is hardly gigantic. That was one of the last images I used. You eliminated that too. How is your 300-pixel-wide image much smaller? Your argumentation borders on the ridiculous. It is not condescending to use a larger image. It is just a larger image. Oftentimes the full-size image or the medium-size image uses nearly the same kilobytes (or close) as the 300 pixel-wide images. Whereas having to click through a couple images to get to the larger image uses more kilobytes and download time. It is not rocket science. Why can't you acknowledge this? Sometimes the full-size image is actually much smaller in kilobytes than the reduced-size image. It is the nature of image resizing and resampling. By the way, mapmakers such as yourself are much appreciated at wikipedia. So don't take any of this personally. We just have a difference of opinion. --Timeshifter 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You changed the image to 700px. Here is the diff:
So maybe you are a bit lost in your perception? Either way, it came full circle around to the original placement of the images, regardless of the attempts you made at image sizing and placement. Rarelibra 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why so touchy? I tried various sizes and ended up at around 450 pixels wide for the image placed after the text. Once JWB narrowed the width of the table and the sidebar it was possible to place the 300-pixel-wide images in floating alignment with the text running around the right side of the images. You had nothing to do with that. JWB fixed the problem. Now the page is viewable without overlap problems. Even in laptop computer with 14 and 15 inch screens. Please give credit where credit is due.
Did you read JWB's suggestion higher up to increase the text size slightly on the images so that the text is readable on the 300-pixel-wide images? I agree with that suggestion. --Timeshifter 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then - knock yourself out. Rarelibra 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I want to have to wade through all the flack you might give me for changing the text size on the image. Considering all the flack you gave me for changing the image size in the article. I will let you change the text size on the image if you want. Then you can give yourself a hard time. :) --Timeshifter 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I gave you flack at the time when I checked the changes to the page and saw a gigantic image (size 700px) that YOU changed. Go figure. Rarelibra 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems you got stuck in time at that moment, and stopped paying any real attention to anything said here. But hey, that is your right. Go figure. --Timeshifter 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Too bad you lack comprehension of the facts. The current settings are fine, so go on and happy editing. Rarelibra 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No need to be uncivil. Just because you refuse to acknowledge any of the points made by others in this discussion. Must be an ego thing, Sarge. --Timeshifter 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hardly uncivil at all, in keeping with the level of civility which you, yourself, display. As far as ego, it is one thing to discuss, another to do some 5-minute glance at my English user page and attempt to come back with some kind of contrite, shortened (and affectionate) synonym for position or rank as a possible slander or indirect insult (by insinuation, even). It is another to be borderline WP:CIVIL by issuing such an insult. Don't get personal with me - as I haven't with you. Keep it professional, shifter. Rarelibra 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Touchy, touchy, touchy. I see that you can dish out the uncivil statements, but can't take it. What do they say about the kitchen... Let us declare a truce and avoid even the minor snide comments. Agreed? --Timeshifter 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The minor ones I can handle. You know as well as I do what I speak about. It seems we are approaching an amiable solution on Commons. Let's concentrate positively there. :) Rarelibra 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures -- include Israeli settlers?

Does anyone know if the figures from the Palestinian statistics office includes everybody who lives in the governates, or just those subject to PNA authority, or if they exclude inhabitants that the PNA would consider illegitimate (i.e. Israeli settlers)? This would make a big difference, particularly in the Jerusalem governorate. --Jfruh (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)