Talk:Emanu-El

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

National Register of Historic Places

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

Judaism

This disambiguation page 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

External Links

This page originally only included hyperlinks to congregations that had a Wikipedia entry. At some point, off-site links were added to every congregation. I fear this will simply become "listcruft" that can be found in more complete form at the Reform, Conservative, WUPJ, etc. pages (mostly linked to at the bottom). Shouldn't this list be primarily for the congregations that are already listed on Wikipedia - or am I way off and this should be a more inclusive list which can include any congregation named "Emanu-El" or the like? I'd appreciate others' opinions. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're convenience links for now. I suspect that articles could be created on a good number of them, and these serve as a means of easily linking to the subject, so they can be assessed for notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why internal links to Wikipedia pages may be preferred, but I would guess that the average viewer of this (and similar) page would be more interested by the external links. I'm inexperienced at the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia, but is there a clean way to showcase both? --Arizonapaull (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i just visited the Talk page to raise the same issue that JerseyRabbi stated. This is a disambiguation page currently, which is supposed to disambiguate between places of this name that already have wikipedia articles (bluelinks). A disambiguation is not supposed to be interesting, it is to provide disambiguation. See wp:MOSDAB for guidelines. A disambiguation page can also include redlinks to known-to-be-wikipedia-notable other places of the name. I added 5 NRHP-listed ones, which are known to be wikipedia notable (because NRHP-listing establishes notability both in terms of importance of a building and in terms of availability of reliable sources/documentation). For red-links, it is generally required to also have a bluelink to a wikipedia page that points to the given red-link, showing the context in which the red-link is important. The entries which are just external links do not qualify currently. I guess i think it would be best to move out all of those, although they could be copied to this Talk page. If notability can be shown and articles created for any of these later, then bluelinks to their new articles can be added.

On a similar note, I'm not sure if the distinction between Conservative vs. Reform temples available for many but not all of the listed ones should be maintained here. That would be okay in a list-article or some other form, but this is a disambiguation page, and the distinction should only be mentioned if it is part of clarifying for a reader which temple is the one they are looking for. doncram (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that this disambiguation page has changed a bit since last I stopped by. And, I can see clearly now, and will create a separate article for the Emanuel in which I participate. But, I cannot figure out the order of the U.S. listings - it appears that they are supposed to be alphabetical by state, then city; however, that does not seem to be the case. Anyone know why and/or can do something about it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizonapaull (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP

I am not sure I understand the new changes in the list. Several synagogues listed on the NRHP are being identitied separately. However, only 2 of those synagogues have a link to the actual synagogue. Why are they listed at the top of the US entry giving them "special" status - especially given the 2 column format that has been added to the page (for clarity). Why aren't those synagogues listed by denomination? If the group feels the NRHP is so vital on the Emanu-El page, it now compels us to check other Emanu-Els for such designation and turn this from a disambiguation page on a synagogue name into a mini-NRHP listing. Shouldn't that be a separate page of synagogues which such status? I'm sure many non-US synagogues have similar types of designations. IMHO, the synagogues should be divided by Country and then by Denomination. "Other" is a perfectly good denomination. I do not feel "NRHP" is sub-section that makes sense for this page or for the existing headings we have. Thanks. JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they don't need their own section. For that matter, I don't think Conservative and Reform need their own sections. It should be alphabetical, for the most part, by state and city. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NRHP ones. I do not know whether they are Conservative or Reform so i could't put them into either of those categories. Putting all the U.S. ones into order by state and then alphabetically would make sense to me. doncram (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP redirects to National Register of Historic Places. Please forgive me for not already knowing what it meant.

Temple Emanu-El (Houston, Texas)

This was added to the (dab) article, but NOT as a link (because it would have been a "RED" link). However, I read somewhere that adding an external link (such as "Temple Emanu-El (Houston, Texas)") is allowed on the "Talk:" page for a (dab) article [here!], while deprecated (or NOT allowed) on the article page -- the page of the (dab) article itself.

"Therefore", I am providing this external link here: http://www.emanuelhouston.org/ ([for] Congregation Emanu El - Houston, Texas). (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- as of March 8, 2019

The editor who made THIS (22 September 2013) change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanu-El&diff=next&oldid=556134636 apparently did NOT first read the explanation given here [the one that is time-and-date-stamped "09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)"] in this section of this "Talk:" page.

IMHO, that might well be [at least part of] the reason why the entire entry (having been turned into a RED LINK, which apparently is deprecated on any disambiguation [“dab”] page) was later deleted.

The situation was not helped -- maybe it was made worse? -- by this (13 December 2013) edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanu-El&diff=next&oldid=577788367

... in which the state name was moved to outside the (already red) hyperlink, probably by some well-intentioned editor. That probably made it even more likely that some (future) editor would be tempted to (and would not know the reasons [shown here] NOT to) delete the entire entry for Temple “Emanu El” in Houston, TX.

I think that the entry should be reinstated, WITHOUT being a hyperlink at all -- (neither red nor any other color) -- (and perhaps with a helpful comment, right on the disambiguation page [maybe in a footnote! Would that be OK?] even though some kinds of links are deprecated ... since it is a “dab” page) in article space, to mention

this useful explanation

of ... the reasons WHY that [Houston, TX] entry should NOT be converted into a RED hyperlink [nor deleted]).

((which can be found at the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emanu-El#Temple%20Emanu-El%20(Houston,%20Texas) ... that is, in this section of this "Talk:" page))

If someone does start an article ... so that the hyperlink could be a non-RED one ... then, that would be a whole new ball game. But until then, IMHO it should not be (/"have") a hyperlink at all (on the disambiguation [“dab”] page).

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change

Wouldn't it be better if the article was called something like Emanu-El (Jewish temple), making Emanu-El a redirect to it? --uKER (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]