User talk:Astropulse

Your edits to the opening paragraph of South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Sorry to bother you on your talk page again but I used up my revert for the day being neurotic about legal citation format, and there's enough separate things about your edits that I disagree with that that's probably for the best.

[[International law|case]] is not a good wikilink. Per MOS:LINKCLARITY, it should be easy to guess based on the text where a link will take you.
Pending → ongoing is fine, but I'm struggling to understand your thinking with removing the specification public international law which specifies what kind of case it is and provides a logical place to put that wikilink to International law.
I don't get adding {{about}} at all. I don't think anyone coming to the article called "South Africa's genocide case against Israel", or any of the page titles that redirect to it are at risk of confusing it with any of the article topics you included. WP:DABLINKUG applies here.

I do appreciate your enthusiasm for this article, for what it's worth. I hope I'm not coming off as overly critical, I just want to make this article the best it can be. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 07:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it’s clear that this is an international law case since it involves the ICJ, which only handles public cases. To my knowledge, the ICJ does not deal with private cases. Therefore, we don’t need to specify it. For ease of reading, I prefer using fewer words and a simpler form of writing Gsgdd (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking of about linking is people if interested in Gaza genocide - can quickly go there. Am i wrong to add it like that? Gsgdd (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is yes. The point of {{about}} is for articles where the title might be easily confused with something that sounds similar. If they just want to read more on related topics then that's what the {{Israel–Hamas war}} at the bottom of the page is for. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 07:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok - i will remove it Gsgdd (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for ongoing, I completely forgot: that's actually not fine. Neither should be used per MOS:DATED. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly. This page is heavily updated with lots of editors. When ICJ rules, someone will take notice and update it. So it would be fine to use it Gsgdd (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about a lot of articles. I wouldn't call this one inherently time-sensitive in the same way that Portal:Current events is. Saying it's an "ongoing" case is exactly like one of the examples given (she is the current director vs. she became director on 1 January 2024). The moment this case concludes, the text calling it "ongoing" will be outdated and need to be fixed, but it's not hurting anything to just not refer to it that way in the first place, preventing that from being an issue. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]