Talk:Merit

Repairs?

JHunterJ, could you expand a bit on your edit here? You're doing a lot of things at the same time, and I can't follow.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It's edited to follow WP:MOSDAB. I don't know which thing might be less follow-able, so it will help if you can pick something specific for me to expand on, if the expansion in that guideline isn't enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I understand your edits follow that guideline, but as a result the definition as used in religious studies which was added has now been removed completely. This religious definition differs considerably from the main definition now given as "a desirable trait or ability belonging to a person or (sometimes) an object", as it pertains to an abstract ethical concept that is different from a trait or ability. In Budhdism, this refers to an energy, in Christianity it refers to good works, and in Hinduism it refers to a range of abstract concept, some of which are not even personal. Is there some way we can give the second definition I added in before a role in the disambiguation article? See also the cited article and the three Wikipedia articles mentioned.

The definition again, this time with an accessible source: In religious studies, it is used with regard to religious practices that aim for the happiness of oneself and others in a calculated manner.

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

References

And if there's a spot in an encyclopedia article (extant or new) for that info, that's where it should go. But this is a disambiguation page (not disambiguation "article"), not an encyclopedia article or a dictionary entry. So the expansive definition is out of place here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

May I ask where you the current definition "Merit is a desirable trait or ability belonging to a person or (sometimes) an object" is based on?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to check the edit history to see who added it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear JHunterJ, so you are okay with me modifying the definition as long as it stays brief, or not? If you don't want to see it modified, you should also be able to defend it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Your contributions can be edited mercilessly. My contributions can be edited mercilessly. I don't owe you a defense of someone else's edits. Yes, the style guidelines include the option for a brief definition (not a second definition). Feel free to continue to improve this page, but keep in mind that it is not an article, that Wiktionary exists for full multiple definitions, that your proposed content would probably improve the encyclopedia elsewhere in an article, and that other editors may edit your contributions. If you can edit the definition to improve it within the consensus guidelines (that is, keep it brief), you're welcome to, and I've never given any other indication. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)