Talk:Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud

work in progress

Please don't delete this page, there's a lot more to come really soon and I assure everybody this article will meet the standards needed for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magister Scienta (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it passes the notably guidelines.

Shouldn't the title be Artscroll Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli per this? —EncMstr (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The title of this article is currently The Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. It seems likely the leading The isn't really part of the title, but even removing that, it is hard to say—or read—the name without passing out from lack of breathing. I did some Googling to see what is actually in use per Wikipedia's naming convention and here are some likely alternatives where the number in parentheses are the number of hits:

• Artscroll Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli (6980) per Eichlers
• Schottenstein Talmud Bavli (38200) per Artscroll and Judaism.com
• Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli (79000) per Antimatrx
• Artscroll Schottenstein Talmud Bavli (9) per Levine

The usual way to choose the appropriate title is the number of informed common usages. But since the first Google hits are booksellers, and some of those are subsearches of others, it is not clear to me. Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the name of this article should not be based off of a rigid rule or procedure, but based on common sense (a practice which is endorsed throughout all of Wikipedia). The Eichler.com name sounds like nothing more than a lot of adjectives thrown together. In regard to the levinejudaica.com name, when referred to in conversation, people do not refer to "Artscroll" Schottenstein Edition Talmud, simply the Schottenstein Edition Talmud. Therefore I think the use of the name Artscroll in the title should not be considered. That said, I believe that either the ArtScroll website or Antimatrix.org names are the ones that we should choose from. However, in my opinion the words "Talmud Bavli" should be substituted for "Babylonian Talmud" simply because that it is the more familiar to most people (note that in the article, Babylonian Talmud and Talmud Bavli are used interchangeably). I personally prefer Talmud Bavli, but I believe for the vast majority, Babylonian Talmud would be better. Thanks for asking for my feedback, please share with me your own comments! Magister Scienta (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about what it should be other than not have a leading The (apparently due to the usage I found). Also, it should be a mostly intuitive title for people who know what they are looking for. That said, there should be every variation of redirect to this article, whatever its final name. —EncMstr (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Once the name is changed I will start working on all the redirects needed (I've already added a handful). This is kind of an embarrassing question...but I'm not sure how to change the name of a page, I thought an administrator or something like that is needed. As always thanks, Magister Scienta (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to move the article, unless the new name conflicts with an existing article, or a redirect with non-trivial history. If using the default skin, move is in a drop down menu at top right between the watch star and the Search box. Other skins have a tab named "move". If you have any problem, let me know and I'll fix it. —EncMstr (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, should I move the contents of this article to a page called Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud? Magister Scienta ^talk 16:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think that is the proper name. —EncMstr (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article, and made 14 redirects to the new page, thanks for the advice. Magister Scienta ^talk 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I made four more redirects. —EncMstr (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, is there anything else I should do? Magister Scienta ^talk 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as the name goes, I don't think there is. You could look for opportunities in other articles to link to this one. And of course, expand this article. See below. —EncMstr (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Magister Scienta ^talk 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion

• Example passages
• publishing details: total volumes printed, total sales, number and dates of editions, number of distributed formats, editors, ...
• structure and outline (examples Kuzari and Emunoth ve-Deoth)
• significant commentaries
• major teaching centers and significant people centered around the work
• related works

Just some ideas for interested editors. This is quite far from my areas of expertise. —EncMstr (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Omission of some commentaries

I was wondering about the total non-mention of some commentaries in the entire Shas. Such as the vast works of Abraham Isaac Kook and his students and/or Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (the Lubavitcher Rebbe).

Is this omission political in nature? Kook - Zionism. Schneerson - Chabad

Awaiting to be enlightened.

Dilip 16:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilipsanjev (talk • contribs)