Talk:Baba (honorific)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

References format[edit]

What the hell is wrong with the ref tag I set up? I don't understand how this is a major issue. WP:NOTES#Resizing references is understandable and sums this up pretty well. Can we come to an agreement here? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks ugly. If you don't see it as a major issue, then how about just letting it be? WP:NOTES#Resizing references is indeed quite clear. Some editors prefer references to be in a smaller font size than the text in the body of the article. The guidance gives a rule of thumb about commonly using {{reflist}} for a list longer than ten entries, but it does not say it should not be used for lists shorter than that. olderwiser 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason that there's different reference templates, it's because of size issues. When the article gets bigger, then we can put the {{Reflist}} on, sounds good? : ) Why fight over how ugly the article looks now? Let's build up one it and maybe get it to a GA! I started this way out at first, then I was tought by Collectonian and now i've made this article, a future GA status. All you have to do is exept our constructive critisisms as experienced editors. : ) – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 00:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

From the linked article: "The choice between {{reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule."

TBH More times than not <references /> has a div around it to change it's size anyway. Artw (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some notable individuals commonly given the honorific title of "Baba"[edit]

There seems to be an edit war over the inclusion of the the list of notable individuals on the page. I would suggest a Straw Poll to establish consensus on this rather than editing back and forth. I'm leaning towards not including the list myself (it would seem too open ended), but do not have strong feelings on it and would wish to be considered neutral for the purposes of the poll. Artw (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • comment Some related discussion here. Artw (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support list removal - inclusively, the preference of <references/> over {{reflist}} per WP:FN#Resizing references. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The list is uneeded, I think we should just move this page to "Indian honorifics", so we can include more. Further info: previous comment I did. : ) – J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the factors leading up to the creation of this page was this edit that added an individual to the Baba disambiguation page. Another editor created an ambiguous and misleading redirect at Baba (mystic) to this individual under the the mistaken assumption that that individual was the only mystic commonly known as "Baba" and then added the redirect to the Baba page. In my opinion, the list of such names does not belong on the disambiguation page. For these individuals, the term "Baba" is not actually either their given name or family name. In other words, they are not referred to solely as "Baba" except in informal contexts. My primary interest in placing the list on this page is to ensure that individuals on the list not reappear on the disambiguation page and so I would not be overly concerned if the list were removed from this page. However, I think some actual examples would help illustrate what this page is about and considering that there is a relatively short list of such individuals, I don't see that including the list is a problem. olderwiser 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - the list in ineffectual and not manageable; to just be called Baba once, how many times before recognized as such, etc. No problem assisting in defining the term by providing examples, but attempting to provide a complete list not helpful. --StormRider 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • support moving the list to see also section as is done on the Don (honorific) page. untwirl (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As long as they are notable people and verifiably given the title in multiple sources, a list would probably improve the article. from RfCOrangeDog (talkedits) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe untwirl's idea can work out. After all, there is precedence. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No list such lists are unmanageable and unencyclopedic. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Honorific[edit]

I have suggested that this article be merged into the Honorific article. Please add your thoughts about this proposed merge. Dolovis (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)