Talk:Ed-Deir, Petra

Bots are not my friends

Niashervin, hi. I appreciate all good work done by bots, your good intentions, progress and so forth, but your bot's insistance is starting to annoy.

At "Christian" there's a ref:

... |title= Monks across the desert. Hermitic life in Christian Petra ... |url= https://journals.akademicka.pl/saac/article/download/2638/2377/3341 ...}} Also available (https://www.openaccessrepository.it/record/110781/files/fulltext.pdf) here.

So basically "see akademicka.pl, and also available at openaccessrepository.it".

The bot keeps on replacing the Polish source with the Italian one, the result being "see openaccessrepository.it, and also available at openaccessrepository.it". So 1) repetitive nonsense, and 2) removes one useful URL. Given the rate of address rot, two URLs are very useful.

Can you pls teach the bot to stay out of this page? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot is not mine, it's a public bot that anybody can use to make suggested changes. Sadly, this means I can't add it to any blacklist. Niashervin (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't change it anymore if I see it come up, but others might. To combat this, the easiest solution may be to simply swap the links, so the one that OAbot "wants" to be in place will be there, and then both links can still be present. Niashervin (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've marked the ref as free. Also, the DOI already points to the akademicka.pl, and the DOI itself is not too risky of linkrot. So, I would propose we simply make the edit the bot changed, and remove the "see also".

Just trying to make things work out in the long run so its not changed by others. sorry this is such a hassle, the bot's development is also somewhat dead.

(also sorry for repetitive comments) Niashervin (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Niashervin, I have no clue about bots, but the edit says "Niashervin", not "self-activated bot". So I must believe it was you who let it loose on the article.

No, I don't agree because REALITY is not linear theory:

- the Polish source allows me to choose if I want to download the whole art. or not; the Italian automatically downloads it, and that sucks (my phone for instance is quite full already).

- the DOI link does NOT lead to a full-text download option, and the humongous DOI sausage is showing in its full useless digital beauty, so if anything, I'm tempted to drop the DOI altogether.

For good reason: let's keep it as is - and the robotically stupid bot out of it. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I gave a TLDR of how the bot works. If you want more details, you can read the link in each of the edit summaries.

Definitely do not remove the DOI. The whole purpose of DOIs are to prevent link rot. They are explicitly preferred by Wikipedia.

I will reiterate, I will not make the changes in the future. I am trying to help in good faith to not have this bot suggest that citation to other editors. Niashervin (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Niashervin. I know you're only editing in good faith. Sorry if I didn't hit the right tone. Arminden (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Deir and Tomb of Roman Soldier complex = palatial residential structures??!!

"The Deir can be interpreted as a private palatial complex with mixed residential, funerary and religious function, similar to the Tomb of the Roman Soldier complex."

Residential, really? Seems nonsensical. Where would anyone manage to dwell in the Deir, let alone in style ("palatial")? If the wider area is meant: explain where the luxury homes would have been. Same for Roman Soldier complex: only nearby dwelling I'm aware of is the "Garden Tomb", which isn't much at all.

Brief & concise doesn't mean cryptic, or in the end it looks more like a misreading of the source. Arminden (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)