Talk:Israel–Vietnam relations

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

Images[edit]

Hi Lib. You write "we do not add pcitures of leaders to bilateral articles, unless the picture has 2 meeting". Can you point to a policy? Because the images meet our image policy here. Or is this a personal preference on your part? I'm surprised to see you reverting here -- we generally have similar views on editing. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which bilateral article talk page but this has been discussed before. how does a picture of a leader even add to the topic of bilateral relations? secondly, if someone wants a picture, one click links to the person's WP page, what next pictures of respective capital cities? otherwise we'd be padding out the pages with pictures of recent country leaders. why not just include pictures of every single minister that has visited other country? LibStar (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal preference ... when editors write "we do not do x", I think they are either talking about me and them, or a policy. If what you are talking about is an essay or another discussion that may or may not reflect the view of the community, but is short of policy, I wouldn't expect to be told "we don't" do it. I do gather that that is your view, and the view of one or more other editors. I'm not sure I agree. I think it meets wp:image and our related policy pages, and I have certainly seen similar use in my broad experience at the Project. Will give it a further think, but now that I hear the basis of the "we do not" comment I believe that its foundation is less than the phrase originally suggested to me. Best..--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it's more than personal preference, it's practice over the 100s of bilateral articles that exist. do you intend to add pictures of leaders to all these bilateral articles? or perhaps add a picture of the Mayor of every municipality article in WP? LibStar (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to do what one can properly do is not a "practice" that rises to the level of "we don't". There are hundreds of lists of people with redlinks that lack refs. Yes, I do delete such entries. Your argument, if accepted, that a failure to do what one can properly do constitutes a "we don't" practice would lead to the conclusion that it is not proper to remove such unreferenced redlinks. While, of course (and I'm sure you will agree), it is proper. The same goes for primary schools that do not meet GNG -- we may have many of them, but their existence just because nobody has AFD'd them at this point certainly does not make it a "practice" that we retain non-notable, AFD-failing, primary schools. We don't assert "We do created articles on non-notable primary schools" as though it is policy-supported, just because we have dozens or hundreds of them. This is a big project; not every think that could be considered for action has been subjected to consideration and action as of yet. And then, of course, there is the understanding that just because something hasn't been done yet, there is no timeline.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't given an actual reason why adding pictures of leaders is necessary for bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lib, I don't understand -- this isn't the Lib I've known in the past. Bad day? Why do you imply that there is any obligation is on the adding editor to demonstrate that the add is "necessary"? No such obligation exists. That's obviously not the standard. C'mon -- you know that. It is not "necessary" to add any text or any images to any article in the entire project.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing about bad day, please assume good faith, like anything that is included in WP there needs to be a justification, reason or standard practice. you wanted inclusion of images, I've given several reasons for not having them, yet you go on a vague policy argument without specific reference to the value of inclusion. You've demonstrated to me there is no real argument for including images of leaders. thanks. discussion closed. let's move on and edit LibStar (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith -- I've always found you to be a good faith editor, and think we typically saw things in a similar light in the past. That's why I was wondering what's up here. The suggestion is not "assume everyone is having a good day" -- it's a completely different principle. Let me reiterate -- It is not "necessary" to add any text or any images to any article in the entire project. Yet, you asked why the image was "necessary." Why in the world do you think it has to be necessary? You still haven't explained why you think that's the standard, even though you imply that it is. I'll ask you again -- where does it say that it must be "necessary." If that's not the standard, and you mis-spoke, just say so. If it is the standard, once again -- show me where it is stated as the standard.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, what reasons are for including pictures of leaders in bilateral articles. you wanted the images retained (and reverted the removal accordingly) but given no reasons, instead engaging in a long winded policy vague response. I'm not responding further on this as you still won't give a reason. I'm returning to editing. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you twice -- you seem to have again made an assertion that does not ring true. You imply that the photo has to be "necessary". Do you have any support in policy for that?
As to why it is appropriate IMHO to use the images, the answer is that the images are relevant to the article. They are images of the people, discussed in the article, who are conducting the relations. If I have an article on a writer, I don't need a photo of him in the act of writing to included the image. It's the same here.
Images are an important part of any article's presentation. Consequently we should make an effort to improve images in articles rather than favor their removal, especially on pages -- such as this one -- which have few visuals.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this debate and thought I'd leave my 2 cents, as someone who has worked on this article in the past: While it is surely better to have a photo that shows the “relationship” between two countries/leaders, if there are none to be found I personally have no objection to adding separate photos. Images obviously add to the visual appeal of an article and make it more likely to be read.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel–Vietnam relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel–Vietnam relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Vietnam_relations&oldid=1216455382"