From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of colonies as an own article?[edit]

Hi everyone the list of colonies gets longer and longer and a similar list exists in Colonial empire.

I think it would allow different articles to use these lists in a combined way and enhance quality if these lists would be collected in a List-article.

I propose an article, to move the said lists, with either wording:

I think it is though necessary to have a useable definition of what a coloial possession and colonial empire differentiates them from say a conquest and integration in an empire and thus excludes from the list.

For my part a colony is a nonintegrated territory of an empire, opposed to its integrated territories (e.g. Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire, or any other territory of so many empires, etc.) ... imho Nsae Comp (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[]

@Nsae Comp: This is a good idea. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[]

This could cause issues when it comes to places such as Egypt under Roman rule.

Was it integrated enough to be consider “part of the Roman Empire”, or was it separate enough to be a colony? What about Islamic conquest of Egypt? Was a colony, a caliphate in its own right, integrated?

It can get bogged down quickly.

However, the idea is amazing, so I’m hopeful that a very concrete definition that to which the article refers (or as concrete as definitions can get). Gesorgod (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Indefinite full protection?[edit]

This article now has the distinction of being the only non-redirect page within the en.wikipedia article space that is indefinitely fully protected, other than the Main Page (see Special:ProtectedPages). As far as I can tell, the stated rationale (persistent IP edits) is not consistent with our protection policy, which states that full protection is for Articles with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts. You might ask whether that instead warrants 30/500 protection, but the same policy says that 30/500 protection should not be applied as a protection level of first resort, which to my mind would certainly preclude full protection from being used as a first resort, particularly in response to IP edits. My reading of the policy is that the appropriate level of protection here would have been pending changes review.

As to the particulars of the edits—namely, changing entries in a long and mostly unsourced list that apparently nobody is monitoring—wouldn't the obvious course of action here be to delete the list? Isn't this a better job for categories anyway? I just find it totally extraordinary that the first intervention here was to totally lock down the page—an intervention that seems to be applied to no other article on Wikipedia. Just for completeness, I'll note that of the 20 or so non-redirect or non-disambiguation page in article space that are fully protected for a finite amount of time, only one of them is protected for longer than a month; the others are protected only for days or weeks. Einsof (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]

I think the problems with disruptive/weird/pointed edits here will be indefinite so it makes sense that the protection be as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
No it doesn't. Even articles on perennially incendiary topics like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which attract trouble from logged-in users and not just IP editors, are left at 30/500 protection. Einsof (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Wow I completely misunderstood, not sure how I missed the WP:GOLDLOCK. Maybe because as you said its pretty much *never* used. You are entirely right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Graham87: Einsof appears to have made a number of excellent points and I was such an idiot to them I think the least I can do is help solve this mystery. Do you think you could elaborate on the reasons for the protection? I see this edit summary "disruptive editing, the fact that so many edits went by seemingly unchecked shows that the community cannot watch this article" [1] and I’m wondering what the background to such a decision is? Are there any other pages locked down in such a way? Whats policy or guideline are you operating under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Einsof and Horse Eye's Back: I was operating under the policy of WP:WRONGBUTTON ... seriously, I meant to use semi ... and thanks to my screen reader usage, I didn't notice what I'd done. I also don't mind the use of blindness as a metaphor like that. I've made this mistake before but have usually caught it in time. Graham87 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Graham87: Thanks, maybe I should have guessed it was a misfire. If nothing else, I got to refresh my memory of our page protection policies... Einsof (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021[edit]

According to (source) should be added to the Israel as it reads right now as a subversive move to undermine the indigenous Mizhrahi populations. Gesorgod (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021[edit]

Change List of United States colonies and protectorates, remove "Tangier International Zone (1924–1956)" Lantheon (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]