Talk:Jewish seminary

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Category or dab page?

WP is not a dictionary. Dab pages are for when several articles are about subjects with the same name, for which someone might go looking. There is no one subject that is called "Jewish seminary". There is nothing to be said about Jewish seminaries in general, beyond the fact that they're Jewish and they're seminaries. Therefore this should be a redirect to the category; that's what it's for. Oh, and by the way, seminaries are by definition tertiary institutions; secondary schools are not seminaries. (Mechinos are minor seminaries, but that's not the same thing. And most secondary schools are not mechinos.) -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a not a "dictionary" -- how do you arrive at that conclusion? Articles do not redirect to categories. Jewish seminaries refers to a variety of institutions. Disambigation pages can have any number of articles that are 100% about Jewish seminaries, even though there may be variations of their official legal names. It says that it refers to institutions of higher learning=tertiary institutions. You cannot discriminate against non-Orthodox Jewish seminaries because that violates WP:NPOV. You also cannot make a cholent out of this article's name by automatically redirecting to a category. It is now the lead article for the category. A few more sentences of explanation would help. An encyclopedia is here to describe and explain things, while by your blanket redirect to a huge category you de facto turned the article, albeit a mere disambiguation page, into one huge strike at WP:NOTDIRECTORY.IZAK (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you are stressing Beis Yaakov over other institutions. I have noticed that links to Beis Yaakov have been added to many articles where they are out of place, in a possible campaign to promote this institution. Please refrain from taking part in that effort. Also we should not link to any specific institutions, as that would be unfair, which is why I linked to the category. So please stop ignoring the rcommendation of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary. Debresser (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm surprised that Izak doesn't seem to know that. An article that simply defines a term has no place in an encyclopaedia and should be deleted. And disambiguation pages are not articles. There is no article here, and I don't see what potential article could be here; what is there to say about Jewish seminaries as a topic? Therefore I see no reason why this page should not simply redirect to Category:Jewish seminaries; if Izak or anyone else has a reason please offer it. Simply saying that pages in the article space do not redirect to categories is not helpful; the redirect worked, so obviously they do. -- Zsero (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this I agree with User:IZAK that this is just a stub, and should be kept. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why? What content could an article with this title possibly have, besides defining the term, which is the function of a dictionary, and listing seminaries, which is the function of a category? -- Zsero (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could do what it does, which is to explain that there are several different entities that the term describes and the why and wherefore of this. It go on to tell us something about the purpose of these and perhaps something of the general history of seminaries within Judaism. Need I go on... -Arb. (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theology Navbox

It is usual but not essential for navigation templates (Navboxes) to be added to each of the articles that they list. As it stands, {{Theology}} is quite wide ranging and includes the topic Seminaries and theological colleges. As a consequence it was added to this article. Another editor has objected and removed it. Is this the consensus? -Arb. (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who removed it. I think the general "theology" template is too far from "Jewish" and "seminary" to be relevant. A specific "theology seminaries" template, if it existed, or the general "Judaism" template would be better. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation formatting

Please be aware that if this page continues to be tagged as a disambiguation page, then it will be brought into conformance with the guidelines for disambiguation pages. As properly formatted, the contents of the page will appear as follows:

Jewish seminary may refer to:

Please bear in mind that disambiguation pages are not content pages, and only serve as navigational devices containing only those links necessary to direct readers to terms that are directly ambiguous with the page title. See WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line; WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries. Deviation from these requirements can be severely disruptive to the efforts of disambiguators, and therefore harmful to the encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with bringing this page in line wirh disambiguation guidelines. But that is not the way WP:MOSDAB says a disambiguation page must look. Every entry may be described by a sentence, not just a word. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link to WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line; this clearly instructs that the introductory line must read "Jewish seminary may refer to:", then you should review that section more thoroughly. Please be aware that there must not be any links on the page other than links to terms to which the title is ambiguous, because such other links confound the software that offers solutions for fixing links to the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it does. So what is your problem? Debresser (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does. So long as this page has a "disambiguation" tag, you are now aware that the addition of any links extraneous to identifying the ambiguous terms, and thereby disrupting the ability of disambiguators to fix incoming links, will be considered vandalism. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it still does after my revert and changes. One more attempt to intimidate me, and I will report you at WP:ANI. I have already replied to your argument on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your reply is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You want this to be something other than a disambiguation page, but with a disambiguation tag that is not suited for the material you want on the page. You remove maintenance tags unilaterally, without waiting to see if any other editor agrees that maintenance is needed. I am not trying to intimidate you, I am trying to police your harmful conduct. bd2412 T 21:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your jumping to significantly change this page also conduct that needs to be policed. By the way, I have no problem with reverting to the last stable version until we work this out. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean this version? Since that is not a disambiguation page, there is no limitation of substantive content to be included on that page. There seems to be substantial support in the deletion discussion for this not being a disambiguation page in any case. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the version I had in mind. The deletion discussion is not closed yet, so I don't mind if we revert to this non-disambiguation version for the mean time. Anyways, just a suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]