Talk:Sabbath mode

Shabbat module was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 October 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Sabbath mode. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Delay

How is the random delay any different from, say, striking a poor-quality match that may not light on the first try or ever? --NE2 11:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the direct cause and effect, not the confidence of the operator in the operation they initiate taking place. --Jndrline (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title change?

I don't understand the name change. The majority of the sources for the article use "Sabbath Mode". A minority use "shabbos mode". "Sabbath Mode", furthermore, is used in all of the "authoritative" references, i.e. the ones by the people who invented or are actually building the feature. "Shabbat" mode is used in none of the references, so changing to "shabbat mode" makes the article more obscure in the service of some wikipedian unification principle I'm not familiar with. Let's change it back.

-- Vonfraginoff (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press this link Shabbath. Did it lead you to Shabbat? That is why. For consistency. If that article were renamed, then we should rename all others, but until such time, this is preferable. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the fact that Sabbath redirects to Shabbat is somehow a justification for introducing a disused term as an article headline. Shabbat=Sabbath is very different in that there are millions of users of both, and there are good reasons for having both of them, and so we may resort to some sort of "ownership" policy or even arbitrary Wikipedia conclusion to decide the issue. Here, consistency is in conflict with the reality of the usage. Shabbat mode is relatively unused. I don't find consistency to be so very compelling that it causes Wikipedia to introduce neologisms. Vonfraginoff (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FiveRings has addressed this issue by providing Yiddish and English translations in the first sentence. Also an idea. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is simply that "shabbat mode" is actually the translation. The real term is "Sabbath Mode". See the sources. I thought wikipedia is supposed to be about the references. Vonfraginoff (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only about references, but yes. A Google search shows 25:1 in favor of "Shabbath mode", so I think we should indeed consider a rename. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinions about move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Skomorokh 10:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat mode → Sabbath mode — In continuation of the conversation in this section, this new subsection is here to ask for input from other users. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge: Shabbat module

Similar topics and Shabbat module's sources are all failed verification. Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of merging this article into Shabbat module or visa versa. But what do you mean that the sources "are all failed verification"? I checked a few of them, and found them to be in support of the content of the article. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Shabbat module. Hyacinth (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I commented there to answer your questions. I now think that the merge should indeed be as you proposed it, Shabbat module into Sabbath mode. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I've reverted this edit and wanted to explain why. The term "observant Jews" is not an encyclopedic term and doesn't belong in this article. The term is not precisely defined by anyone. Obviously many "observant" Jews do not keep an Orthodox shabbat -- for example, there are observant Reform Jews who do many of those activities on the Sabbath (see an example here: [1]). Using "many Jews" avoids the problem of trying to define what an "observant Shabbat" is; same with trying to define what "Halakha" is or is not (even if you may have very strong opinions on what Halakhah is). Secondly, there's no issue with adding citation needed tags and the refimprove tag. They're very often used together and there's no reason to remove the template. Please add reliable sources before removing the template. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why the template should be removed in this edit summary. I understand your point about the term "observant Jews", even if I don't agree with it. I had already changed this to something more precise in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting here. It would have been preferable for you to comment before once again reverting content. I don't think your edit summary is at all adequate to explain the editing you're doing. First of all, if you would read the BRD page, you'd see it says "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." You haven't done that, and you are also missing the "discuss" part of BRD, as in discuss it here on the talk page. Please provide a reason for why you disagree with my points before reverting the page to your preferred status. You don't WP:OWN the page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been there so many time... I don't use BRD as a reason to revert. The reasons are what I wrote from the beginning. I reminded you of BRD so that you;d understand that as the editor trying to introduce a change, the burden of proof that your change is a good idea is on you. In any case, you have not commented on my objections, so I suppose you agree with my points. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

Why no discussion of the thousands of people who inadvertently get placed into Sabbath mode on their electric appliances and have no way to override it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.90.183 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is this a serious post? Debresser (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]