Talk:Ohaveth Sholum Congregation

A fact from Ohaveth Sholum Congregation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ohaveth Sholum Congregation, Seattle's first Jewish congregation, fell four days short of having the first synagogue in Washington?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/November.

Wikipedia

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative spellings

Yes, the transliteration Ahaveth is more common, but as far as I can tell this congregation never used it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Can you delink the WSJHS in the refs? The link doesn't go anywhere anyway. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link goes exactly where it should: to the references section. It happens that in this case the page is short enough that that may not result in any physical movement in your browser (although it should still highlight the item in the references section, unless you have a stylesheet overriding that. This is how {{Harvnb}}, one of our standard approaches to citation, works. I didn't come up with the mechanism, and it's pretty widely used. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, {{Harvnb}} is generally used in Wikipedia articles with parenthetical citation; I've never seen it used inside of <ref></ref> tags, for the precise reason you mentioned—the Notes and References sections are right next to one another, so unless there are several hundred footnotes then the harv link is hardly going to jump anywhere. The reason I'm bothered by these references is, as a reader, I see a blue link and expect that it's going to take me to an external article or something like that that will be the source; the way it works now is very frustrating. I understand that it's not a huge deal, but I was bringing this up mainly to see if you could either a) replace the Harv references with references using a citation template such as {{cite web}}; or b) take the Harv references out of the ref tags and turn them into parenthetical citations. I think using the harv template within ref tags is redundant. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed various times by various people and reached different conclusions. I am doing exactly what the conclusion was the last time I saw this come up on the Village Pump: using {{Harvnb}} for books from which more than one page is cited, so that I don't have to keep repeating all of the information about the book.

I don't object to finding another way to do this, but I have reverted Nrswanson's approach, because it simply breaks the Harvnb mechanism: the "confusing" links were still there, the only real difference being that they were broken. - Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch the village pump, but here's a note from the Good article criteria; I know this article isn't up for GA right now, but I think this is still relevant: "In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article" (emphasis added).

As for finding another way, I would suggest doing what you have not but not linking it—ie, not using Harv or any other special formatting. I'll do it to the page in a moment and then you can decide if you like it or not. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in retrospect, I think I was interpreting that quotation from GAC incorrectly...it probably means there shouldn't be Harv references in one sentence and <ref></ref> references in the next. But I still think my revision (removing the links) is an improvement. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration and meaning of name

It is not clear to me what the name of the congregation is in Hebrew. The closest Hebrew phrase I can think of which makes sense is אהבת שלום (ahavat shalom). The spelling used by the congregation might be an attempt to transliterate the Yiddish pronunciation of this phrase into American English. If this is the case, then the first sentence in the "History" section needs to be corrected as the phrase does not mean "lovers of peace" but rather "the love of peace". In any case, there also ought to be a {{lang-he}} to clarify this issue. --Zvika (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we have Degginger to cite for "lovers of peace" and no one to cite for the other translation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an unpublished manuscript on a website, not a reliable source. You can't get a dictionary entry for either אהבת ahavat (the love of) or אוהבי ohavey (lovers of) because they are both derived forms. The closest you can get is the base form: אהבת is derived from אהבה, love, while אוהבי is derived from אוהב, lover. (Links are to an online Hebrew-English dictionary.) --Zvika (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]