Talk:Baba (honorific)

References format

What the hell is wrong with the ref tag I set up? I don't understand how this is a major issue. WP:NOTES#Resizing references is understandable and sums this up pretty well. Can we come to an agreement here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks ugly. If you don't see it as a major issue, then how about just letting it be? WP:NOTES#Resizing references is indeed quite clear. Some editors prefer references to be in a smaller font size than the text in the body of the article. The guidance gives a rule of thumb about commonly using {{reflist}} for a list longer than ten entries, but it does not say it should not be used for lists shorter than that. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason that there's different reference templates, it's because of size issues. When the article gets bigger, then we can put the {{Reflist}} on, sounds good? : ) Why fight over how ugly the article looks now? Let's build up one it and maybe get it to a GA! I started this way out at first, then I was tought by Collectonian and now i've made this article, a future GA status. All you have to do is exept our constructive critisisms as experienced editors. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

From the linked article: "The choice between {{reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule."

TBH More times than not <references /> has a div around it to change it's size anyway. Artw (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some notable individuals commonly given the honorific title of "Baba"

There seems to be an edit war over the inclusion of the the list of notable individuals on the page. I would suggest a Straw Poll to establish consensus on this rather than editing back and forth. I'm leaning towards not including the list myself (it would seem too open ended), but do not have strong feelings on it and would wish to be considered neutral for the purposes of the poll. Artw (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment Some related discussion here. Artw (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support list removal - inclusively, the preference of <references/> over {{reflist}} per WP:FN#Resizing references. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - The list is uneeded, I think we should just move this page to "Indian honorifics", so we can include more. Further info: previous comment I did. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• One of the factors leading up to the creation of this page was this edit that added an individual to the Baba disambiguation page. Another editor created an ambiguous and misleading redirect at Baba (mystic) to this individual under the the mistaken assumption that that individual was the only mystic commonly known as "Baba" and then added the redirect to the Baba page. In my opinion, the list of such names does not belong on the disambiguation page. For these individuals, the term "Baba" is not actually either their given name or family name. In other words, they are not referred to solely as "Baba" except in informal contexts. My primary interest in placing the list on this page is to ensure that individuals on the list not reappear on the disambiguation page and so I would not be overly concerned if the list were removed from this page. However, I think some actual examples would help illustrate what this page is about and considering that there is a relatively short list of such individuals, I don't see that including the list is a problem. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the list in ineffectual and not manageable; to just be called Baba once, how many times before recognized as such, etc. No problem assisting in defining the term by providing examples, but attempting to provide a complete list not helpful. --^StormRider 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• support moving the list to see also section as is done on the Don (honorific) page. untwirl (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: As long as they are notable people and verifiably given the title in multiple sources, a list would probably improve the article. from RfC –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe untwirl's idea can work out. After all, there is precedence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• No list such lists are unmanageable and unencyclopedic. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Honorific

I have suggested that this article be merged into the Honorific article. Please add your thoughts about this proposed merge. Dolovis (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. @Dolovis: Rather, I have proposed to enlarge the scope of this article. Please see below. PPEMES (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a stand alone term and page, a suggested merge doesn't seem to take that into consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Babu (title)

I propose to merge this article with Babu. It seems the two articles cover the same topic only with a slight spelling difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikt~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. PPEMES (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be that only "Other uses" section merits a merge. PPEMES (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, these are different words with different meanings. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Baba (honorific) → Father (honorific) – Per WP:GLOBAL. "Baba" is not restricted to Persian language. In fact, "father" is a honorific with diverse uses - religous and beyond - reflected in diverse languages. Perhaps this article and its scope should build on the generic term instead, per WP:NOTFINISHED? Cf. Father_(disambiguation)#Religion, which indicates missing such article. An article which this could be the start for? PPEMES (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, the word "Baba" has definite and established cultural usage, and in many religious uses means much more than 'Father'. I've created the page Father (honorific) and redirected it to Priesthood in the Catholic Church, which is what you may be equivocating this too. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Do you have any comments or updated views in light of the below two added comments? PPEMES (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the word is a recognized honorific, and not just in Persia. See the many individual articles on Wikipedia of individuals which use the word as a part of their name. This is a non-problem with a made-up solution, the page needs some editing, but nowhere close to a name-change. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What if the premise of your position - that this should be merely one specific of numerous articles on the uses of father as titles and styles - implies even more hypothetical body of work than my request does? I would I supported you, had that been a precondition. PPEMES (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not 'Father' as in the Catholic terminology, the article is about the word 'Baba'. This has a meaning similar to 'Mahatma' (see Mahatma Gandhi, it is not just an honorific that means 'Priest', it is an outside acknowledgement of spiritual wisdom. One example, Baba Ram Das gave up the title (Mohandas Gandhi never wanted it), but it is an alternate name and he is not known as Father Ram Das. Get it yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the only uses of father as a honorific exists in Christianity and in said use in Persia. In fact, a glance indicates it is quite varied in use in different historical eras and languages. At a bare minimum, an overview article on the uses forked from this standalone could probably be helpful? PPEMES (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about 'father' but about the page under consideration, Baba. People didn't call Baba Ram Das "father", they referred to him as 'Baba' in terms of a learned wise man in what he was sharing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. See also Abba (father), which redirects to Ab (Semitic). Perhaps a better title for this article would be Baba (Persian)? or if the scope is actually increased and improved, the title could be Baba (father) or Baba (Father)? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is very confused. It starts off with a reasonable introduction of the Persian term, and then veers off into discussions of etymologically unrelated words like 爸爸 in Chinese. It should either be fleshed out to provide a global perspective and moved to a different title (not sure if "Father (honorific)" is the best, but definitely not its current title), or restricted to have a more clear focus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's because it is not just a Persian word, it is used in India and throughout the world as a religious honorific. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Following the opposition of Randy Kryn, I have drafted a list article under Father (honorific) instead. PPEMES (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• PPEMES, have been hesitating commented on this all day, so as not to interrupt your flow, but what a good page you've put together! Nice work, I learned a lot, and it's a great new article to come out of this discussion. Thanks for it, and for its "side effect" outcome you added to the Names of God template. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from Abuna

Much overlapping. Would a better overview, as discussed in article rename request right above, be befitting? PPEMES (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, these are different words. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't both relate to "father" (-na, "our"), with slightly different ableit overlapping uses? PPEMES (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, please read the lead. 'Abuna' is a very long-established word, millennium long, and religious title. It has its own meaning, and rightly deserves its own article. Read the lead, and maybe this will make it clearer. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that what's mentioned in the current version of the article encompasses the full extent of the word's usage? And does all uses merit their own article? PPEMES (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Read the lead. If the lead is accurate the honorific religious title has been used for over a thousand years. This honorific name is established, is long-term, and is an important religious job title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing overlapping between these two pages as they currently stand. And why no tag on abbot? (That's not a suggestion.) Srnec (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

While remotedly related, you could argue that merits its own article. Whereas maybe not all other uses, which may better be collected. PPEMES (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Both words have quite distinct meanings. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Aboona?

Please see rationale above. PPEMES (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As the above failed, I've closed this one, but suggested merging Aboona with Abuna. Klbrain (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)