Talk:Chabad (disambiguation)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chabad (disambiguation) page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Cleanup
[edit]Re this claim: "Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments, with no final punctuation (commas, full-stops, semicolons, etc.)." Piped links are acceptable in the description, not in the entry link. Entries are bullet-listed. I have no idea what being organisations has to do with the style guidelines. Please see WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, Abtract was observing WP:BRD when he didn't revert your changes. BRD goes on to say "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once." -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I missed the line about the periods (I searched for "period", not "full-stop"). About this specific piped link: itis the best way of refering to that article. They are organisations afilliated with Chabad, and are usefull links on this page, since anybody who came here is likely to have had these in mind or at least be interested in them as well, but they are not by themselves called "Chabad", and should not be represented as such. Abtract and you are appearently not familiar with the Chabad movement and its affiliated organisations, and you might have consulted others before making wholescale changes. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Or, he could make a bold edit and we could work together to improve the page, which has worked as well. As for the piped link, in that case, a link to the redirect is preferred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think we worked it out. I'm not completely happy, but ok. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Or, he could make a bold edit and we could work together to improve the page, which has worked as well. As for the piped link, in that case, a link to the redirect is preferred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I missed the line about the periods (I searched for "period", not "full-stop"). About this specific piped link: itis the best way of refering to that article. They are organisations afilliated with Chabad, and are usefull links on this page, since anybody who came here is likely to have had these in mind or at least be interested in them as well, but they are not by themselves called "Chabad", and should not be represented as such. Abtract and you are appearently not familiar with the Chabad movement and its affiliated organisations, and you might have consulted others before making wholescale changes. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Consistency
[edit]Because this page leads to Kapust and Strashelye, Chabad offshoot groups, I've added the other groups, Niezhin, Liadi, and Avrutch.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I personally think we should swap all groups for one link to the offshoot page. But User:Debresser insists that would be "reinventing the wheel", and that we should first reach a concensus on subject. I have deferred to him due to his experience in this area. So, shall we change the individual links to one general one? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since these groups are all Chabad, I think they should be here. It would seem logical to add the link to Chabad offshoot groups as an intro to the list of specific groups. After all, they each have their own article, and should therefore be represented on this disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)