This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I agree that the brackets are better, for the reason stated. Other disambiguation could also be used, but under no circumstances should the "I" or "I"" be left without brackets.
Debresser (
talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Agree with Users
Yoninah (
talk·contribs) and
Debresser (
talk·contribs) above -- that the brackets "( )" were just fine -- and a quick Revert is called for in all cases where such changes were made. It is highly surprising that an editor who, based on his record, does not seem familiar with this subject, should undertake such changes without seeking some prior input from more experienced editors at
WP:TALKJUDAISM that would seem a pretty basic requirement as per
WP:CONSENSUS.
IZAK (
talk) 11:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Cmt I prefer (born 1849).
Chesdovi (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Agree with Yoninah's proposal, as there is no precedent for numerics in rabbinical dynasties. I will readily support the alternative option. With regards to the year of birth, this seems unnecessary.
JFW |
T@lk 15:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The option to fully expand the title as Yoninah suggested is the clearest to the non-expert. Just using (I) is a convention that will not be easily understood. It only makes sense to do it that way in a general encyclopedia when the different people of the same name are discussed together or in series. DGG (
talk ) 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am the one who expanded it, so I agree with
Yoninah (
talk·contribs)'s new idea, as mine was just temporary (neither '(II)' nor 'II' is very clear; see
WP:D because the brackets (I) and (II) are very confusing. For all we know, the articles don't refer to rebbes at all, so that's also why I agree with Yoninah's idea). Also, I just moved the page in accordance with Yoninah's proposal.
Epicgenius(
give him tirade •
check out damage) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid your solution is also a temporary one, Epicgenius. For the non-educated reader, the questions arise: First rebbe of what? What's a rebbe? Above, the other editors are trying to reach a consensus which will impact several other
Hasidic dynasty pages. There's no need to rush to a solution until we all agree on something.
I am in favor of the first. Having a year is awkward, and I haven't yet seen that being done on Wikipedia for people.
Debresser (
talk) 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I agree that the brackets are better, for the reason stated. Other disambiguation could also be used, but under no circumstances should the "I" or "I"" be left without brackets.
Debresser (
talk) 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Agree with Users
Yoninah (
talk·contribs) and
Debresser (
talk·contribs) above -- that the brackets "( )" were just fine -- and a quick Revert is called for in all cases where such changes were made. It is highly surprising that an editor who, based on his record, does not seem familiar with this subject, should undertake such changes without seeking some prior input from more experienced editors at
WP:TALKJUDAISM that would seem a pretty basic requirement as per
WP:CONSENSUS.
IZAK (
talk) 11:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Cmt I prefer (born 1849).
Chesdovi (
talk) 12:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Agree with Yoninah's proposal, as there is no precedent for numerics in rabbinical dynasties. I will readily support the alternative option. With regards to the year of birth, this seems unnecessary.
JFW |
T@lk 15:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The option to fully expand the title as Yoninah suggested is the clearest to the non-expert. Just using (I) is a convention that will not be easily understood. It only makes sense to do it that way in a general encyclopedia when the different people of the same name are discussed together or in series. DGG (
talk ) 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am the one who expanded it, so I agree with
Yoninah (
talk·contribs)'s new idea, as mine was just temporary (neither '(II)' nor 'II' is very clear; see
WP:D because the brackets (I) and (II) are very confusing. For all we know, the articles don't refer to rebbes at all, so that's also why I agree with Yoninah's idea). Also, I just moved the page in accordance with Yoninah's proposal.
Epicgenius(
give him tirade •
check out damage) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid your solution is also a temporary one, Epicgenius. For the non-educated reader, the questions arise: First rebbe of what? What's a rebbe? Above, the other editors are trying to reach a consensus which will impact several other
Hasidic dynasty pages. There's no need to rush to a solution until we all agree on something.
I am in favor of the first. Having a year is awkward, and I haven't yet seen that being done on Wikipedia for people.
Debresser (
talk) 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply