Talk:Reproof

Unsuitable material

Some may argue that the accompanying supposed Dab should simply be deleted for lack of encyclopedic content. I'm inclined to split it into an arbuably compliant Dab, and what's left, which should at least make for a more orderly discussion process.
--Jerzy•t 16:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I hid this in a comment:

* Rebuke and reproof (Judaism)

Dabs may not have external links. But perhaps an article can be based on a paraphrasing of the following source:

JewishEncyclopedia.com entry "Rebuke and reproof"

It includes discussion of haḳpadah and nezifah, and links to "Anathema" and "Excommunication".

It may, or may not, be worth an article, which if created should be lk'd by the Dab.
--Jerzy•t 16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion entries

(moved from User_talk:Widefox) Your errors at the Reproof redirect were various. But in particular, regarding 'keeping the original description', please note that this applies where the actual redirected term is the linked term. MOS:DABPIPING states, "When the link is part of the description, rather than the actual entry name, piping can be used more freely." In this case, your preferred usage, "Reproof, a form of Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline" is a nonsensical phrase. Presentation as "a form of congregational discipline among Jehovah's Witnesses" is correct, and is sufficiently similar to the linked term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I see my bad entry now - I'd just restored some temporary version with bad English of mine that was live for two minutes three years ago without reading it. Yes it doesn't look easy to get the title into an entry so your version is fine. The issue is not the allowance of deviance from the title as you quote above, but just after what you've quoted... The text of the link should not be the title of a different article, and should not surprise the reader. For example:.. (see Ten example) - so trying to keep as close as possible per ASTONISH, which in this case isn't easy, so your version is fine.

As for the use of a redirect vs a dabmention for the CofE entry - it is a valid entry in the body of the dab not in the see also just like the JW entry and also best placed together with it to disambiguate. We have at least one article mentioning the term in the Bible but we don't often use quotes in dab pages so I left off. If the articles were better we may have more clarity on the term, way outside of my pay grade. Widefox; talk 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Congregational discipline among Jehovah's Witnesses really isn't so different from Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. Certainly not enough to 'astonish' anyone.

I don't have any issue with the modified presentation for rebuke.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite right. If I can I try to reuse the title verbatim, which I'd incorrectly assumed I'd correctly done before. I must have given up midway through and decided to redirect. Widefox; talk 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)