Template talk:Jewish texts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
I used other Templates to base this off of: Template: Jew template:United States Court Case, though I think the "rollup" feature is a grand improvement.
| "Not that it need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short." |
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK> 25 August 2005
[edit] Sandbox
Please use the Sandbox for this, before posting a hard-to-troubleshoot mistake.
[edit] Template
Category:Judaism Category:Jewish law and rituals Category:Religious texts Category:Jewish texts
 |
|
|
|---|
| General |
| Liturgy |
|
{{{tanach}}} |
|
{{{1}}}{{{2}}}{{{3}}}{{{4}}}{{{5}}}{{{6}}}{{{7}}} |
|
{{{8}}}{{{9}}}{{{10}}}{{{11}}}{{{12}}}{{{13}}}{{{14}}}{{{15}}}{{{16}}}{{{17}}}{{{18}}}{{{19}}}{{{20}}}{{{21}}}{{{22}}}{{{23}}}{{{24}}}{{{25}}}{{{26}}}{{{27}}}{{{28}}}{{{29}}}{{{30}}}{{{31}}} |
|
{{{32}}}{{{33}}}{{{34}}}{{{35}}}{{{36}}}{{{37}}}{{{38}}}{{{39}}}{{{40}}}{{{41}}}{{{42}}}{{{43}}}{{{44}}}{{{45}}}{{{46}}}{{{47}}} |
|
{{{48}}}{{{49}}}{{{50}}}{{{51}}}{{{52}}}{{{53}}}{{{54}}}{{{55}}}{{{56}}}{{{57}}} |
|
{{{58}}}{{{59}}}{{{60}}}{{{61}}}{{{62}}}{{{63}}} |
|
{{{64}}} |
|
{{{65}}} |
[edit] Wording and Organisation
[edit] Template Needs serious review and comments
This template needed and needs to have serious discussion BEFORE it is "put into action". I never said it was complete. How would anyone know it existed unless I put the half-baked version out for people to review? It should have been brought to the attention of all the active members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. There are already some agreed upon guidelines for Judaism-related articles which this template ignores compeletely. I was unaware of the WikiProject, and was not "ignoring" it. How, exactly is it agreed upon, if only people who know about the WikiProject are the only ones to know about any guidelines? For example:
- "Hebrew Scriptures" is never used, it's Hebrew Bible.
Again, I claim ignorance (yesterday) of any agreed-upon guidelines. I would counter, on this point, that I've seen Chumashim that say "Hebrew Scriptures" right on the front (granted, now that it is brought to attention, I realize they were put out by the Reform movement).
- Halakha is NOT a Jewish "text" it's JEWISH LAW.
Written Jewish Law. And transcribed Oral Law.
- The Oral Law article does not deal with the Jewish Oral Law exclusively and is misleading, which should be the Mishnah and Talmud.
A good edit. I was tempted to link directly to the section, but have yet to figure out how to make a permalink. It was on my to-do list.
- "Old Testament" is NEVER used in describing the Jewish texts, and if needed it would be Hebrew Bible which then makes it a repeat link of "Hebrew Scriptures". Using "Old Testament" would imply that "Jewish texts" are linked to, or "approve of", the New Testament, which they obvioulsy could not and would not were this to be done correctly.
I assumed someone might come back with this. I clicked on a generic link (a link that said whatever) and came to the Old Testament page. Only because of the disambig link at the top was I able to realize that the article was Christian POV. People might not read that deep, or might ignore the disambig link at top. The original idea with having a "General" section, was to highlight that there are several articles about the same thing, that really can't be merged because the differences are more than title semantics. I was planning to change the title of the link to something like: The Five Books (Christian Perspective) Again, this is something you could have edited.
Someone here is obvioulsy missing many "links"This is the only mention of anything as being missing that you make, and I encourage you to edit and make suggestions. Category:Jewish texts has many entries that this template was not trying to replicate. But, please contribute and edit rather than delete. , or is working from a certain anti-Jewish POV Flame; no response. as to what Jewish texts really are and has the temerity to create a template and post it without some intelligent JEWISH input first. Therefore it will not do!Again, this is a flame and assumes, incorrectly, that I am not Jewish. It's begging me to tell you my own affiliation. I'll bite. Modern Orthodox.
IZAK 05:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I put replies to IZAK's concerns in italics/green above. IZAK, this isn't the first time that we've crossed paths, and each time, you've come off really harsh. I can't imagine that I'm the only one who might still be in the process of learning Wiki. There's a lot to learn: etiquette, groups, magic words, coding, and more. Please, go easy on me.
- Oh, ho ho ho! So, "this isn't the first time that we've crossed paths" then, so pray then, why not tell us your previous user-incarnations on Wikipedia o' hidden one? Are you a sockpuppet then? Why the mystery? And if you and I have "crossed paths" before, so then how come you don't know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism (you can find it mentioned on my user page) that you seem to belittle here by saying "How, exactly is it agreed upon, if only people who know about the WikiProject are the only ones to know about any guidelines?" -- a really snotty comment. Everything you say here shows that you admit that you are not "experienced" enough yet to make major edits, so why did you blithely concoct this template (not a mere minor edit mind you) without even checking with ONE person on Wikiepedia, besides yourself? Please get real. IZAK 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- By the way "Green lantern", would it be too much to ask of you to stick with conventional Wikipedia ways of communicating instead of using all this weirdo green font that makes reading you a little hard on the eyes? Thanks hon. IZAK 06:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- This seems like a rather uncongenial manner of discussion... I agree that sometimes, IZAK, you need to calm down your reactions... After all, to my understanding, the template hasn't actually been put in any pages yet, so there should be nothing to get so worked up about. Wikipedia is open to people who have never edited a page before, even if they don't know what a WikiProject is, or that there is one for a particular subject area. So the template was not built with all the necessary subtelties, but, unlike other interference on Wikipedia, was built with good intent, and so should be treated with a polite response, not an attack or attempt to describe someone's deficiencies. --jnothman talk 10:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for the kind and well-put defense.
- In IZAK's favour, I did publicize the template on each of the pages that the template linked to, though I would not consider it as major a change as he describes. Certaintly not worth blanking (I assume for fear that I might have hidden the template on other pages that he wouldn't know to delete). My assumption was that more people would come and make it better. I have yet to see any edits, only insults and naysaying.
-
- Jnothman: While I appreciate your concerns, what you say is not true because the above "new" user did in fact place the template on about twenty key pages, and it was when I saw them that I went to each of those pages and reverted his edits that contained this clumzy skewered template, so that's why you don't see it on pages now. As for being "open to people who never edited pages", the above user openly admits that he and I have crossed paths in the past, so he is not a new user at all. New users rarely, if ever, start off by creating and placing hefty templates on key pages, they are usually more cautious and they ask for help which this user did not do. I don't mind being nice to new users, but I am sceptical about those who are willing to "jump in where angels fear to tread". IZAK 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yes. Why?
- — <TALKJNDRLINETALK>
- Regarding being bold about putting a template. I was able to create Template:African American and add to pages, with a warm welcome, though I am not African American and expected resistance. (I was hoping that people would add and take away from the template, so that I could be redirected to learn more. My wife and son are African American.) The only changes ended up being cosmetic and terms. Many people moved it to be less prominent on the page. Certaintly, being Jewish, I thought that the reception would have been better, with only additions, terminology changes, and cosmetics. I've been a web developer for many years and don't have as much an inclination to write, as do technical editing.
- Regarding having crossed paths with IZAK before. This was a situation where I recanted, and felt what I did was not for the better good. I added the view/edit link to the Template:Jew page, per what I had seen on other pages, and what I found in Help. Though I still think it was correct, the subsequent vandalism convinced me that the "Jew" template shouldn't have this link. I was citing an example of where IZAK had been harsh, and didn't want it to be misconstrued as an example of an appropriate decision.
- Regarding the statement IZAK found "snotty." Per the article Wikiproject, a wikiproject is only for the coordination of writing pages — not for developing standards and holding users accountable, else be subject to deletion. Just because I've met you before wouldn't automatically mean that I would know about the wikiproject either. And, had I known about it, my assumption would have been that this was to develop new pages, not to collectively guard existing ones, so I wouldn't have visited it.
- Regarding checking with ONE person. I now know a few people under the African American pages because they came to compliment me when putting out the Template:African American in the same manner as I attempted to do here. Though I was very active on the Sanhedrin page, the people who I know in the Jewish "corner" of Wikipedia are pretty much limited to IZAK. I certaintly would not go to him to critique me. Jndrline 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh please, can't you take some vigorous "give-and-take"? It's all "in a day's 'work' on Wikipedia". Oh, and thanks for laying off with all that green paint, it was making me dizzy reading, honest! IZAK 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Size
Technically the template is far too large and why do we need repeats of the ones that already exist in Tanakh-related articles, such as Template:Books of Torah; Template:Books of Nevi'im; Template:Books of Ketuvim and more? See also the related discussion/s at Template:Judaism where the place of "Jewish texts" is discussed and a proposed section for it exists. IZAK 05:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Though I commend and appreciate the effort involved, I'm afraid that this template is too bulky and redundant. HKT talk 05:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Each page may have the books below it, but moving laterally or back through the outline is difficult, particularly if you don't know where to go. Eg. Nehemia to Mishna or the converse.
- It would take forever to just create a template by myself, and still have it flawless upon presentation. I expect people to edit it and make it smaller/streamlined/inclusive. I actually envisioned it going at the bottom of a page, like Template:Africa.
- — <TALKJNDRLINETALK>
This thing should have been discussed first--if it had, the discussion would have immediately gone to Template talk:Judaism, where this discussion has been underway for some time. That said, while this template fits into the general scheme I've come to think is the best approach, this template is written in a rather unweildy style, for one thing, but more importantly, it's just way too bulky. Also, while the picture is certainly very pretty, I think it would be more appropriate to have an image of a magen david superimposed on a sefer torah than on a book--the current image says "messianic" all over it. Tomer TALK 20:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Tomer, I think you may be onto something...time will tell I guess. IZAK 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the image chosen. Although I winced at the icon looking "messianic," I certaintly see what you are getting at, now that you mention it. I don't appreciate IZAK construing your criticism to reflect upon my affiliation, and turning it into a flame.
- This was something that I did up quickly, and I was planning to replace it with something more like this with a well-chosen verse, in the style of an ashkenazi Torah being held up. I knew where to get a Mogen David that was public domain, so I just went to the Commons and did a search for a book - thinking I'd find clipart of that faster than Torah (thinking I'd have to sift through a bunch of photos.)
- Regarding discussing it first. I'll check out the talk page you mentioned. I did see a fairly large list, taking up a section of the Tanach page, which hasn't been edited in a while, and used the Hebrew right off of many pages. My thought was that this would keep everything tight, and stop the encyclopedic entries on many pages being just a list of the books that it contained.
- Regarding the "unweildy style" I, by no means, wanted to people to accept this template as-is. I would rather it didn't use parameters (except for alignment), and only did it so I could "roll up" items. I also think it's too wide because of how deep it goes, and the style of bullets. As I mentioned (in green, don't worry about looking for it) I think something like this would be better, to go at the bottom of a page, uniformly, particularly as Tanach, Talmud, Tosefta, Shulchan Aruch, Kabbalah, and Midrash make up the main levels. This would also address the concern of repeating items already on a page, since it would always be when the reader got to the references and other links section. So, when I get a chance to read through the Judaism WikiProject, and the Judaism talk page, then I'll decide how to post a revision.
- Thank you TShilo12/Tomer for being constructive.
[edit] The purpose of this template
I think Jnderline should be commended for attempthing this, but before embarking on this template I think a clear purpose should be delineated. The body of Jewish literature is absolutely enormous, and attempting to fit even the different types of work into one template is a very tall order. When I started, I made the mistake of trying to categorise all of medicine in this way, and it simply does not lend itself to infoboxing.
My recommendation would be to limit this infobox to the main periods (Bible, Tannaitic, Amoraic, Geonic, Rishonic and Acharonic periods) with only the MOST IMPORTANT WORKS mentioned (e.g. Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh). Everything else will make the table unwieldy. Can we agree on this? JFW | T@lk 22:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
PS I like the image! JFW | T@lk
- Thank you! I don't know if the periods would solve the issue, but it might. I can see people wanting to split up Talmud a lot more than I already have, and periods is the classical way to do this. You're right that the main point right now is to justify its existence. My original purpose was to replace the multiple "books of the *" templates and sections with one uniform template, and to only use lists on pages, if the list gives detail as to the organisation of the liturgical text. I think Talmud Organisation and Function section does a good job of using the list, rather than having the list hanging out there. These things only seem to appear under liturgical texts, and not under most of the links in Category:Jewish Texts. How would you suggest that I delineate "a clear purpose." People have told me to go to various discussions and projects . . . did you have something else in mind? Perhaps someplace where I don't get deleted, torn apart and insulted — and maybe have a chance?
- — <TALKJNDRLINETALK>
