Talk:Yodfat

message: Where are the sources for changing it to "moshav shitufi" and 1960?? There is no mention of this on school website.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says so in the Mapa Gazetteer and the Yodfat website. -- Nudve (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  validity of changes 

message: The two pages contained duplicate data, they were practically identical. Poliocretes (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they should stay separate. One is about the ancient town, the other about a current village. If anything, the redundancy should be removed not merged. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see it, there were two problems with the old Jotapata article, besides the duplicate data: First, it linked to the Hebrew page on Yodfat; since that page includes both ancient and modern Yodfat, the link back did not link to the Jotapata page, but to the Yodfat page. This was just confusing. Socnd, why should the ancient settlement be on a page called "Jotapata", while the modern one on "Yodfat", when Yodfat was also the name of the ancient vllage? Again, this was confusing, giving the impression that the two places somehow had different names, when this was not in fact the case. Also, the Jotapata page made a reference to the current moshav, which would have been meaningless to anyone without foreknowledge of modern Yodfat. Perhaps we should indeed separate Yodfat into two entities, the ancient and modern ones, but I think the names "Yodfat" and "Ancient Yodfat" would make better sense. Any thoughts? Poliocretes (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see any problem here. There is hardly a place in Israel which doesn't have some link to ancient history and a dozen different names. There is no justification for a separate page for every name.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be logical and less confusing. One issue was the acceptable name; granted that I prefer the Hebrew name, I am not the history buff to know if Jotapata might be more widely known in that sense. But while it might be reasonable for many ancient and modern localities to be on the same page like Beit Shean and Ashkelon, but at this point, there is no connection between the ancient town and the new moshav similar to Meggido and the Tel, Dan, Israel and it's old namesake. Look at :Tzippori, this has definitely been overlooked. The moshav gets an offhand mention. --Shuki (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's follow the Dan and Megiddo examples then. How about "Yodfat" for dealing with the ancient settlement, and "Yodfat, Israel" for the current moshav? Poliocretes (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Jotapata page into this one 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Yodfat. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131208145305/http://www.yodfat.org/about.php to http://www.yodfat.org/about.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article should be linked to the article "Jotapata" in the German Wikipedia.
Years ago linking to foreign language pages was an easy task, but it is no more achievable to me.
Please help. --Himbear (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking Required

message: One is listed at
*Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region - refers to the entire Palestine region/Land of Israel
**Ancient synagogues in Israel - refers to the modern State of Israel
Arminden (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient synagogue?