DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The map colours are very misleading

[edit]

The black and dark green colours are too similar, which could lead to a misconception thinking Brazil and Turkey are Arabic or something. I propose using a different colour scale for non-Arabic countries. Youprayteas talk/contribs 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree RickyBlair668 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please add Arab countries to "regions with significant population"

[edit]

Only minorities are listed right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.182.83 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion. Saudi Arabia should be near the top of the list assumably Xoikism25 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readability and Cluttering problems

[edit]

@Largoplazo Hi, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section.

Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read.

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It says a long parenthetical, of which this, in my opinion, isn't one in my desktop browser, the entire thing fits on the first line. I admit that that, by itself, wasn't what triggered my revision, but a mistake I'd made—I'd thought that, as things were, it wasn't actually being displayed anywhere. Now I see I was mistaken about that. So I guess it's OK to restore it to footnote status, even though, as I've indicated, it also isn't necessary. Largoplazo (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Hi, In my opinion only one transliteration (e.g. only Arabic: عَرَب) is enough for the first sentence. Other transliterations can be considered "too detailed or awkward" and can be mentioned in footnote. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infobox

[edit]

@Abo Yemen, the first part of your edit summary doesn't address the first part. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes *in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text.*" Its usage here is very much helpful, esp when you're looking for a specific country, where reading a long list of country names isn't as efficient as looking for the flag). In other words, your rationale for having them has to do with finding the countries, not with providing additional information. If your interpretation were valid, then it would hold for every single infobox on Wikipedia and the provisions in MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS for avoiding flags would never apply.

The only additional information that the flags give readers is the knowledge of what those countries' flags look like. In nearly all cases, this is a digression, irrelevant. In this case, it amounts to, "Here are all the places in the world where Arabs live and, by the way, this is what those countries' flags look like even though that has nothing to do with the subject at hand." This is precisely the use of flags that MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS is aimed at. Largoplazo (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not in the mood to argue… Feel free to revert me if you think that i was wrong 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash, now you've reverted my removal of the flags. Your edit summary gives two reasons: links, and consistent with other articles. Response 1: You don't need flags to link country names. Response 2:
  • It's inconsistent with other articles.
  • While consistency is a driving consideration, isn't the idea to move consistently toward compliance with the MOS rather than consistently away from it?
Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with removing the flags, though the country names weren't linked before my revert. Skitash (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also agree with removing the flags per the manual of style and per WP:BRD (they're a recent addition that was reverted so there should be consensus before re-adding them). I agree with Skitash that the country names should be bluelinked; that's the only substantial change we should retain and I assume it's not what Largoplazo was objecting to anyways? Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, my issue is only with the flags. I'll take care of it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox 'Regions with significant populations'

[edit]

At the top of the article is an infobox titled Regions with significant populations. The first point I would say is that what is listed under the heading is countries not regions, second it seems weird that the list does not include any of North Africa and little of the Middle East - I mean if it is meant to be a countries list then Saudi Arabia etc. are going to be at the top. Firestar47 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's meant to be implied is significant populations outside of countries where they basically are the population, or at least the large majority of it. Largoplazo (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are right. Either way I think that particular section needs to be revised. Firestar47 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]