Template talk:Nature reserves of Israel

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


Mount Hermon is not a nature reserve in Israel. Do we have a source that says that its a nature reserve at all? Gamla is not in Israel, it should be explained in the template or removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Hermon nature reserve" is located in the northern Golan Heights, an area under Israeli control since the June 1967 Six-Day War, which was declared a nature reserve on December 6, 1974. The reserve includes the entire area of the mountain which is located on the Israeli side, except for the Hermon ski resort, Neve Ativ and the Nimrod Fortress. The "Gamla nature reserve" is located at the center of the Golan Heights, an area under Israeli control since the June 1967 Six-Day War. Even though the territory in which these nature reserves are located at have been conqured during the Six-Day War from Syria, Nevertheless, since then, they have been located within an area which is under the control of The State of Israel. I do plan to create new articles for the reserves themselves though. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Gamla is indeed a natural reserve [1]. The Hermon reserve is written as a natural reserve in Wikipedia (including the Hebrew one), but I didn't find it the Natural Reserves and National Parks Authority website, which includes probably only packed natures and not entire (large)-area reserves. There is, however, Hermon Stream Reserve (Banias stream). MathKnight 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither Gamla, or Hermon or any other region in the Golan Heights are in Israel, they are in territory that the entire world recognizes as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. So as long as these regions are in the template, the template should show this. The Hermon article should be deleted if no source can verify that a "Hermon reserve" exists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with changing the name of this template to "Nature reserves of Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Emphasizing which nature reserves are located in occupied Israeli territories in the template[edit]

I am not sure that the current way of pointing this fact out is the best way to do so or if this really is necessary to point out in the template itself. Anyone else besides Supreme Deliciousness believe it is necessary to do here? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary because there are regions that are internationally recognized as in Syria in this Israeli template. Either these regions that are internationally recognized as in Syria are removed from this Israeli template, or there must be information (one sentence) pointing out that these regions are not in Israel, so we don't mislead the reader into believing something that isn't true.
At the other template there was Golan and West bank sections separate from the State of Israel section, and you removed them and added the Israeli proclaimed pov regions: [2] so you can see this version of a sentence explaining the situation as a compromise, which I will also be adding to the other one soon. Or do you want separate Golan and Westbank sections?
And please remove your "Citation needed" tag that you added, there are tons of sources in the Golan heights article to confirm this and also this is a template and not an article, you don't see me adding "Citation needed" tags after everyone of these nature reserves you added in the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Since the division given by the parks authority is North-Central-South-Eilat - I would like to change the template to reflect this. Any objections? --Sreifa (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Small (1) mark is better viewable then the (*) mark.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better? I don't know, since there's no "2", but whatever... I don't think italics at template size are easily viewable. --Sreifa (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You could barely see the (*) marks, so how is it not better? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
From a technical perspective: It's not strictly conventional to number a note when there is only one note. Also you said "better viewable", but the font size used in templates is not "better viewable"(/more easily readable) when italicized. Sreifa (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(1) numbers are used in other templates when there is no (2), its to make it noticeable different from the others, see how its made in other templates: [3][4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
then at least remove the italics --Sreifa (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I changed the "1" superscript to a "†" because there's never a "2" and de-italicized because one indicator is sufficient.—Biosketch (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)