User talk:Java7837/Archive Jul 2007

Template:Prophets of Judaism

Are people like adam, abraham, david considered prophets by jewdism? i though they were not, they are respectable figures etc... but they had no prophecy's thus they are not prophets. Islam does consider them prophets but i was wondering about the jewish POV. --Histolo2 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, i've never heard a jew refer to them as prophets (× ×××).. don't get me wrong they DID have direct connection with G-d etc... but i'm not sure that the word prophet is the right one symantically, but hey you're the expert and i'm propably wrong so forget about it.

BTW i like that online template of yours and i'm gonna translate it and use it in arabic wikipedia, hope you don't mind --Histolo2 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just checked the template out, you change the status manually, is there a way to make it automatic? (i'm just too lazy for changing the status everytime ;) ) --Histolo2 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

As I stated at WP:ANI; Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also kindly ask that you cease and decist your changing of the {{Reflist}} to the <references/> markup. These edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. Please stop ane immeeiatley address this situation. Should you choose to ignore this request and continue the obviously disruptive behavior you may regretable recieve a temporary block to give you time to address these issues and take a break from your task at hand. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refrain from deleting your talkpage comments in the middle of an ongoing dispute. It is considered highly rude and gives the impression that you're either ignoring the person or have something to hide - Alison âº 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While, what moe.RON says above is true, {{ref}} is not the same as {{reflist}}. The latter is useful for shrinking down large reference lists when they tend to dominate an article. With a second "|2" argument, they make 2-column lists. Note that the source of {{reflist}} will show that it actually contains the <references /> tags within! Either way, you should really stop right now as 1) other editors have now reverted and 2) your heading for being blocked for being disruptive. Thanks - Alison âº 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was too much stuff on it

--Java7837 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also i don't care anymore i am going to convert {{Ref}} to <ref>

There should be no problem with that

--Java7837 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious diseent on your page that you removed shows that there is a problem with it. The community apparently finds this disruoptive. Please do not try to cause trouble as your above statement implies. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. Stop to listen what others are saying. {{Ref}} isnt the worst, but {{reflist}} is something else altogether - Alison âº 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just placed something illegible on my talk page. Can you clarify what you're saying here, please? - Alison âº 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just interested in converting old {{Ref}} tags, you might want to check out Cyde's convertor at User:Cyde/Ref_converter - Alison âº 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i was doing was converting pages with {{Reflist}} not {{Reflist|2}} nor {{Reflist|3}} just {{Reflist}} to <references/> and only for articles with less than 15 references

--Java7837 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not right, sorry. Better off sticking with converting {{Ref}}s - Alison âº 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Unless you would like to start a proposal and get a community consensus to convert all of certain type of refs to another, it is going to be disruptive. As of now, it appears th community has an issue with the conversion, especially such large number of onversions with no community discussion. As allie says, stick to coverting the {{Ref}} to whatever you like. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that sort of edit is really useful. Excellent work! - Alison âº 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree allie!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

--Java7837 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one of best things about is it also saves space

--Java7837 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java, thanks for backing off on the {{tl:reflist}} conversions. One thing to be aware of in converting the {{tl:ref}} system, is that some articles use it along with the {{reflist}} system in order to have two separate note systems. One such article is the Canadian Football League page in this section. This enables the article to have notes beneath the team tables, while still maintaining an endnotes section near the bottom of the page for references. I have no idea how many other articles do this, if any, but just watch out for it. Thanks again. - BillCJ 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume you didn't get this note in time, as you changed the CFL page anyway. There are also several hidden-text notes on that page asking that the system not be converted. I've reverted your changes. Please be careful, and pay attention on each page you convert. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. I agreed with you that using <references /> rather than {{reflist}} is appropriate for small lists of notes, just that this sort of edit is rather minor and usually not worth doing. However, using Ref converter is considerably more controversial, and needs to be used with great care. For instance, this edit replaced some ref tags with {{citation needed}}. Now, it's true the corresponding note tags were missing, but that's because they were vandalized (a long time ago). Having those ref tags tells editors that somewhere in the page history the notes exist. I found them and added them. If you want to re-run ref converter on that article now, that would be nice, but you should check what ref converter does with the references tag, and make sure they are not small. This edit added a second set of small tags, making the notes really small. Gimmetrow 01:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more careful --Java7837 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say two things

I agree with the editors above, in the sense that {{reflist}} is better than <references />
Regarding, this edit, the old ref/note was used intentionally so that the note doesn't mingle with true references. I have reverted this. If you run into another pre-euro currency, please be more cautious. --ChoChoPK (ççPK) (talk | contrib) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java7837, you're doing it again. Are you completely ignoring other editors here? --ChoChoPK (ççPK) (talk | contrib) 20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Java, you've edited the CFL page [AGAIN]!! I wonder how many other pages you are damaging this way! Please be more careful!!! - BillCJ 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Gimme notes at the discussion at WP:ANI, either template works, though I personnally always use <references/> since the sytle guideline says to use it at Wikipedia:Footnotes. The {{ref}} and {{reflist}} templates are the old system and are being converted to <ref> and <references/> now. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read discussion at Template talk:Reflist: no indications that this heavily used template "is being converted" to <references/>. In fact, the code for {{reflist}} incorporates <references/>, as noted by Alison in the third comment in this discussion thread above, & provides more flexibility in how <references/> is used. In other words, to use {{reflist}} is to use <references/>, simply in a more elaborated form. --Yksin 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if we are just talking about reflist, it is unclear then. template:ref states "Using ref/note tags is the old, deprecated way of making footnotes. The use of Cite.php is preferred." At Cite.php, they say "On Wikipedia, references are sometimes made smaller than normal text, using the code {{Reflist}}." -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might be helpful if the Cite.php article clarified that by adding that the {{reflist}} template incorporates <references/>. The page does say: The basic concept of the <ref> tag is that it inserts the text enclosed by the ref tags as a footnote in a designated section, which you indicate with the placeholder tag <references/> -- but could add or with the placeholder template {{reflist}}. Relist is especially helpful for longer reference lists because it also allows you to put the reference lists in two or three columns. As a matter of taste, I also prefer for shorter reference lists, but other editors have a different preference. --Yksin 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added clarification language at Cite.php, so it now reads On Wikipedia, reference lists are sometimes placed using the code {{Reflist}}. The code for this template incorporates <references/>, but makes the reference text smaller than normal text and with the edition of parameters permits the reference list to be displayed in two or three columns, instead of the default one column. --Yksin 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoeRon, you're not listening to other editors here. While it is true that {{ref}} is old system, {{reflist}} is part of the new system. {{reflist}} uses <references/>. --ChoChoPK (ççPK) (talk | contrib) 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MoeRon is listening, & has replied to that effect on my talk page. --Yksin 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although {{reflist}} incorporates the <references /> tag, it also makes the font smaller. Reflist was created to make font resizing easier, not to replace the direct use of <references /> in text. There is no mandate for all notes to be resized or to use reflist, and editors should not be arbitrarily changing <references /> to {{reflist}} in articles. Gimmetrow 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you on that. Regardless of whether an article uses {{reflist}} or <references />, if the article has a longstanding history of using one or the other, it should not be changed without first being discussed on the article's talk page to obtain consensus. This discussion originated with I and several other editors being upset with what we regarded as the arbitrary exchange of {{reflist}} with <references /> in articles we care about; but that does not mean I advocate for an arbitrary exchange in the other direction. I apologize if I gave that impression. --Yksin 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two-column reference list without using Reflist template

Java7837, replying to your request on my talk page: I discovered the code I used for this before I learned about {{reflist}}:

</div>

Same basic effect as using {{reflist|2}}, just a lot more code to remember.

Here's the actual code for the {{reflist}} template:

<div class="references-small" {{#if: {{{colwidth|}}}| style="-moz-column-width:{{{colwidth}}}; column-width:{{{colwidth}}};" | {{#if: {{{1|}}}| style="-moz-column-count:{{{1}}}; column-count:{{{1}}} }};" |}}> <references /></div><noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}{{/doc}}</noinclude>

If people would like a {{reflist}} template that provides columns but without making the text smaller, I'd think it would be possible to create a new template that copied the above code but just changed teh font size parameter. Even better would be if the people who know more about how to code these templates than I do could modify the existing {{reflist}} template to provide an option between small vs. normal size text. --Yksin 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can provide the option but choice of size and column number will be mandatory --Java7837 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put a request in at the Template talk:Reflist page asking if someone could modify it to add a font-size parameter. --Yksin 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving lots of space on Wikipedia

look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Zodiac&diff=134038697&oldid=132166754

using Template:usbk for userboxes saves much space plz help me convert the Wikipedia:Userboxes to this more efficient and less time consuming format

plz sign your name below and i can contact you about which pages need to be fixed and which ones i am doing --Java7837 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. --Yksin 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I acctually made Template:usbk and did many edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion so that all userboxes are in the Template:usbk format.

Yksin would you like to help me?

Sorry, I'm rather behind already with my own work -- research & writing on some articles. But yeah, I saw you'd actually created that template, good stuff. The link to its companion template for userboxes that have parameters doesn't seem to work right though. --Yksin 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what u r saying

--Java7837 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the template earlier, it said "If your userbox uses parameters please use the template:Usbkc instead of this one" but clicking on template:Usbkc merely redirected one to Template:usbk. But you've done more work since, removing that text, so no longer a problem. --Yksin 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Is there any particular reason you sign your name on a separate line and don't indent past the comment you're replying to? It detracts from the flow of discussion. âPomte 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just do it that way fine i won't do it anymore--Java7837 00:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of Ref Converter

Please check that the results of using Ref Converter make sense. Your edit added two duplicate sections, when the old version of the article was actually fine.

FWIW, the mixing of "old" and "new" styles was intentional, as it let us keep separate "footnotes" and "references". I no longer oppose conversions in such cases (keeping lists separate that way relied on an obsolete system to paper over a flaw in the new system, and I'd rather they fixed the new one). But please check that the results of the conversion make sense. Automated tools make our lives easier, but we are still responsible for checking that they give the correct results. Fourohfour 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect my userspace

Thank you for editing the annoying "Created with..." messages out of the userboxes I have created. However, you also edited my talk page and changed the way the userboxes display. There is a hidden comment that requests you not to edit the "My Userboxes" section. I had it set up the way I like it, properly displaying the userboxes. If, for some reason, my formatting caused some sort of problem, I am sorry as this would be a misunderstanding. But, in any case, I ask that you leave an edit summary explaining what you did and why. Thank you. --FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Userboxes and categories

What does usbk stand for? Userbox something?

I improved {{user category}} for the purpose of showing the userbox in user categories. {{usbk}} is not as suitable for this purpose because Whatlinkshere is irrelevant in the actual category, where you can already see all the users with the userbox.

I also want to set up a template for use in the userboxes themselves, mainly to show specific instructions and the user category (again, Whatlinkshere is already linked on the actual userbox page in the toolbox to the left). –Pomte 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had to do with the way {{!}} gets interpreted inside #if. Seems to have fixed it, with the help of FailureFox.

Code

Result

ubxs

This user has userboxes.

Usage

n ubxs

This user has n userboxes.

Usage

n ubxs

This user has infinity + n userboxes.

Usage

–Pomte 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want an image or text to push through any sections below, add {{-}} to the end of it. –Pomte 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox List Pages Corrupted

I saw the changes you made to the Template:Usbk However it created some corrupted userboxes here at Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects. Maybe it should go back to my versions. Sawblade05 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary hypothesis is a fringe hypothsis

I'm inclined to agree. What's this in reference to? PiCo 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My problem with the DH article is that it's a mess. People are filling it up with edits that don't really belong. The average reader coming to an article - any article, from fly fishing to root canal therapy (the latter benig a subject I've become painfully aware of for the first time this week) just want's the facts on the thing itself, and perhaps a few links to other erlated subjects that he might need to know about. But the DH article goes on and on and on about things that aren't really the DH. Plus of course that even if all the non-DH material were trimmed off into internal links to other articles (which is what hyperlinks are for), it would still be a mess (the artcile I mean, not the theory - that's another story). So, now you know :). PiCo 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary Hypothesis - Adherence

Your sources don't cite proper sources. The adherence section from Documentary Hypothesis is bunk. Not only that, but it's improperly formatted for the article. If you'd like to raise it to Encyclopedic standards, I'll wait, but for now it is to be left without.Chris Weimer 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Radio

You are awesome. Thx for the fixes. I knew something needed to be done - just didn't know what. I followed the lead of what I saw immediately near my inclusion, but knew it just wasn't right. That's one of the things about being a wikiholic - lack of sleep and too many things to learn leads to overload and overlooking of things. Oh yeah, and I'm still a 'greenhorn.' Thx again SteinAlive | ☎ | ☉ 23:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Usbk/DB

I am not sure what is the purpose of this page, but you have probably meant to create it either in the template space, or as a subpage of your user space. Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have moved the template to User:Usbk/DB. (The main namespace is for encyclopedic articles.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly you are trying to do. Could you clarify? - Mike Rosoft 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I can help you. The problem is related to the template {{tnavbar}}, used by {{navbox generic}}, both of which are rather complex and used by many pages. I have left a message at Template talk:Navbox generic; if nobody responds, you can try asking for help by putting the template {{helpme}} on your page. Regards, Mike Rosoft 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't this template just be redundant to {{WP:UBS}}, forcing people to look in 2 different places for the same types of userboxes? For userbox migration, why don't you just use User:UBX which already exists? –Pomte 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)

Your comment, "Fuck you bastards", in this discussion, was very incivil, and 100% uncalled for. Please try to refrain from such outbursts in the future; it could be construed as an attack on another user. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that User:Sefringle was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; however, that's still no cause for attack. I can understand your anger, but I still think that you could've handled it better. If you have a problem with that user's possible bias, then please politely talk it over with him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Category Changes

I appreciate why you did it but, please don't do that again.

If you look at Mythology by culture (sorry I haven't figured out how to link directly to cat pages yet), you'll see that the naming scheme is applied equally to all cultures. Also, if you'd read the box that heads all of those cats' you'd see that the name "mythology" does not imply a value judgement, on the beliefs of those cultures.

I would further point you to the articles on mythology and folklore. Myth and folklore my have a certain overlap, but they do not mean the same thing at all. Finally, choosing to single out only your own beliefs, while leaving all the others is quite biased. Cheers. ornis 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't, seriously ;)... Really if it bugs you that much, then you should go on over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology and discuss the matter there first. You really need to get consensus first before undertaking such drastic changes... and I'll say again folklore ain't the same as mythology. cheers. ornis 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not just up and change category names and recategorize a large number of articles without knowing ahead of time that all the editors involved agree with the change. You should know already from the fact that the last edits were undone that you were doing something that was not approved. So you just wasted your time and my time, as I had to go through and undo every last edit you made on that IP address. DreamGuy 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another bad edit

I also see you were the one responsible for moving most of the information about Jewish beliefs about Leviathan off of the Leviathan article. That edit made no sense whatsoever. Please get consensus ahead of time before making edits like that. It looks like the majority of your changes lately have been to do things that nobody else wants, forcing them to spend all the same time undoing what you did in the first place. DreamGuy 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh categories - discussion on renaming

Shalom. As we have both been moving certain articles from "Old Testament" categories into Category:Tanakh people etc, you might want to comment here on a proposal to rename the categories. - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Now I have my work cut out! Please could I ask for your help, as I don't have convenient access to AWB? Please move all the contents of Category:Old Testament books (except Category:Old Testament Apocrypha and Category:Deuterocanonical books) into the new Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible, which I expect you can do with pleasure! Please also move everything in Category:Old Testament Apocrypha into Category:Deuterocanonical books, except Category:Old Testament Apocrypha places and Category:Old Testament Apocrypha people. That'd be a real help. Cheers, Fayenatic london (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on one second! I don't think all Old Testament Apocrypha are Deuterocanonical. Please move those articles on an individual basis. --Eliyak T·C 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true not all Old Testament Apocrypha are Deuterocanonical. Deuterocanonical refers to after the christians canonized their texts some apocryphal texts that do not fit this criteria is 1 Enoch (Quoted in the epistle of jude), Book of Jubilees, and Testament of the 12 patriarchs (Quoted several times in the NT including the gospel of matthew) --Java7837 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry! The plot thickens... it's just as well Eliyak was watching.

Thanks for your neat and quick work. We may as well leave those Books categories as they are now; I don't want to move the Deuterocanonical books down yet another level ("category:OT Apocrypha(l) books"). - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh vs. Old Testament

Java, you have been consistently moving categories named "Old Testament" to "Tanakh." Please realize that the Tanakh comprises only a part of the Old Testament. In addition, there are books such as Tobit, Judith, and the Books of Maccabees. Also, it is appropriate that Christian-topic articles be placed in Category:Old Testament topics, and not co-opted into Jewish categories. Please consider this. --Eliyak T·C 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

Look at my recent edits i have removed articles such as Jesus' name in the bible or something like that from Tanakh my recent edits have been to put stuff under Hebrew Bible categories apparently from a vote all ot and tanakh categories must be merged and i have been putting apocrypha stuff on their respective categories--Java7837 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this discussion, then I believe you have misunderstood it. The purpose there was only to rename the existing Tanakh categories. If you look at the chart towards the bottom of the discussion, you will see that Category:Old Testament topics and Category:Old Testament books should be retained. --Eliyak T·C 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very pov if they get away with that then i demand Category:Old Testament be renamed to category:New Testament because it is the newest covenant out there--Java7837 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense. Category:Old Testament refers to what the Christians always call the Old Testament. Category:Hebrew Bible will refer to the Tanakh as it is often called in English. --Eliyak T·C 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<- The old in old testament (testament means covenant) refers to dead for example ancient rome, ancient egypt etc. the new refers to current so the newest covenant with god is obviously judaism so tanakh should be called new testament and the christian supposed new testament should be called false testament it is only fair if they are going to say our connection with god is dead--Java7837 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia does not decide what to call things. The Old Testament is the Old Testament. This is why there is a separate Category:Tanakh/Category:Hebrew Bible to deal with the Jewish version. --Eliyak T·C 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is all tanakh categories are to be deleted and instead the term Hebrew Bible if it refers to our text it should at least use the correct term for example Allah doesn't redirect to G-d but if the muslims weren't so active in wikipedia it probably would to the section on the islamic view of G-d --Java7837 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This point was part of the discussion at the renaming discussion for the Tanakh categories. --Eliyak T·C

I thought it was about also renaming old testament categories otherwise i would of have put it in the talk page of WikiProject Judaism and contacted some people on wikipedia i knew --Java7837 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is commendable, but you should know that canvassing by participants on either side of a debate is disapproved of. The debate was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, which you may want to put on your watchlist. --Eliyak T·C 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rabbinic literature

Have you ever heard of Category:Biblical_characters_in_rabbinic_literature ? --Java7837 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it, but haven't looked that much into it. What it refers to is the way various Torah/Tanakh people are discussed in the Midrashim and Talmud (Rabbinic literature means Sifrei Chaza"l) --Eliyak T·C 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]