| Revision as of 15:29, 12 March 2019 editIcewhiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,036 edits →Merge← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:06, 13 March 2019 edit undoZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,868 edits →MergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''Disagree''' If anything, a merge should be in the other direction. Articles on modern locations include sections on the history, not the other way around. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | *'''Disagree''' If anything, a merge should be in the other direction. Articles on modern locations include sections on the history, not the other way around. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::Even if we do not merge these two articles (usually, I'm against merging of sites where there is a common English or Hebrew name, and another one with an Arabic name), the English/Hebrew title (Achziv) is, in my view, the more commonly used name. The history of these two articles overlap; having the exact same history, excepting only after Israel became a State when the site ceased to be recognised by its Arabic name.] (]) 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | :::Even if we do not merge these two articles (usually, I'm against merging of sites where there is a common English or Hebrew name, and another one with an Arabic name), the English/Hebrew title (Achziv) is, in my view, the more commonly used name. The history of these two articles overlap; having the exact same history, excepting only after Israel became a State when the site ceased to be recognised by its Arabic name.] (]) 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Israel resurrected an ancient name, in line with the usual practice of erasing Arabic names. If there was something significant there now, it would be reasonable to debate where the older history belongs. However the fact is that the Arab village was the most recent significant habitation and that it existed for many centuries. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Currently the two pages serves as ]s. Both dedicate much of the article to the same ancient site with the same history. There are actually three aspects of the location: | *'''Support'''. Currently the two pages serves as ]s. Both dedicate much of the article to the same ancient site with the same history. There are actually three aspects of the location: | ||
| ::1. Ancient historical site (biblical mentions, Roman empire, Crusaders, etc) | ::1. Ancient historical site (biblical mentions, Roman empire, Crusaders, etc) | ||
Revision as of 09:06, 13 March 2019
 | Protected areas Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
What about Achzivland?
... two people and a bed and breakfast, at least. +sj +
- See Akhzivland. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Date under Archaeology
There appears to be a typo in the date given for the Chalcolithic Period. Can someone identify what the dates here are meant to say? Downstrike (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Merge
Propose to merge Az-Zeeb -> Achziv, due to the fact it is the same place and essentially same place name with different transliteration. The article Az-Zeeb refers only to historic time window of small Arab-populated village on the Achziv site during Mamluk, Ottoman and British eras, while multiple other cultures had also occupied Achziv (Canaanites/Phoenicians, Seleucids, Romans/Byzantines, Crusaders and lately Israelis), which altogether has a long and rich history. Both articles are too small by themselves (26kb and 9kb) and will have more information if merged together.GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here I would agree to the merge.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- My reading of the articles is that Az-Zeeb is a current (not just historic) town and that Achziv isn't identical. I therefore oppose the merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree this is two names for the same place, so it's obvious they should be merged, or do we also want articles on Ecdeppa, Ecdippon, Achzib, az-Zib, az-Zeeb, and Ak-zi-bi? All are valid iterations of the settlement through history. (Note:.I began the difficult merging of these articles and they were reverted unilaterally reverted.) GenQuest 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree Az-Zeeb's land was also divided into Gesher HaZiv and Sa'ar; how can we accommodate that, if we merge the two articles? I don't see how we can. (And yes, I unilaterally reverted your unilateral merge) Huldra (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree If anything, a merge should be in the other direction. Articles on modern locations include sections on the history, not the other way around. Zero 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even if we do not merge these two articles (usually, I'm against merging of sites where there is a common English or Hebrew name, and another one with an Arabic name), the English/Hebrew title (Achziv) is, in my view, the more commonly used name. The history of these two articles overlap; having the exact same history, excepting only after Israel became a State when the site ceased to be recognised by its Arabic name.Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Israel resurrected an ancient name, in line with the usual practice of erasing Arabic names. If there was something significant there now, it would be reasonable to debate where the older history belongs. However the fact is that the Arab village was the most recent significant habitation and that it existed for many centuries. Zero 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even if we do not merge these two articles (usually, I'm against merging of sites where there is a common English or Hebrew name, and another one with an Arabic name), the English/Hebrew title (Achziv) is, in my view, the more commonly used name. The history of these two articles overlap; having the exact same history, excepting only after Israel became a State when the site ceased to be recognised by its Arabic name.Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Currently the two pages serves as WP:POVFORKs. Both dedicate much of the article to the same ancient site with the same history. There are actually three aspects of the location:
- 1. Ancient historical site (biblical mentions, Roman empire, Crusaders, etc)
- 2. Arab village that developed by the time of British Mandate
- 3. Current national park and disputed micronation.
- There should either be 3 separate articles for each of the aspects (each linking to the two others), or a single article describing all three aspects. Currently there are articles for 2 and 3, and each contains repetition of 1. “WarKosign” 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer merge and not 3 separate articles, because it's hard to draw lines - where does the ancient history end and the Arab village begins ? Name-wise it should be Achziv, since it's both the ancient and the current name, with Az-Zeeb mentioned in the section discussing the site's history as Arab village. “WarKosign” 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Az-Zeeb was a small village, and the Arab period was rather insignificant in relation to prior eras (in the ancient and crusader era). At present, the two articles basically describe the same history twice, and there is little need for this. Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
RfC regarding the above pending merge
 |
|
Should the two articles, Az-Zeeb and Achziv, be merged? Please discuss here and make your decisions known above in the "Merge" section. GenQuest 22:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Categories: