Talk:Temple Israel of the City of New York

Citations

The visual editor does not work well with the original technical implementation of the citations in this article. The style is an accepted method, but the templates used and the reflist centralization make editing difficult. Dovid (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The templates are awkward, and add to the complexity of editing when not using the visual editor. Please use the existing style, and get consensus before changing, per WP:CITEVAR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Reverting_multiple_non-contiguous_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs)

Sorry, what are you trying to say? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg: please follow your own suggestion, and check the talk page before reverting. The note above was present about half an hour before you wholesale reverted. Further, you reverted content that was not within the scope of your revert explanation, which is not in conformance with [[WP:BABY]'s guidance. Dovid (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Which suggestion of mine do you suggest I follow? Which content do you think has been missed? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to article format

If you want to change the article's format, please propose changes here first, as your proposed changes made for an awkward flow, and did not conform to WP:MOS. For example, the article should be a narrative, and not have a "Miscellaneous" section at the bottom for random facts. As another example, the lede should not have a bulleted list. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree about "miscellaneous, but had already changed that one title by the time you reverted - a change that was lost in an edit conflict with you. On the rest: Disagree. The new flow was actually better. The article headings previously did not consistently match the content. They served merely as placeholders in a purely chronological narrative. The new design was more topic based, which is easier to grasp, while also providing a timeline section to maintain the chronology.Dovid (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Which specific material didn't match the content? The chronological flow is clearly much easier to understand, and the section titles merely anchor various phases in the congregation's history. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

First buildings discusses politics and affiliations. Moves to... primarily discusses the rabbinate, not moves. Titles are not just anchor points, they are supposed to structure the material. I would also like to know what your WP:V justification is targeting. I respect the effort you have put into the article over time; still, please think for a moment about the spirit of WP:BB and WP:OWN. Dovid (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The material is presented chronologically—that is the structure, as this is the story of the congregation and its history—but the anchors are the different buildings they were in. It seems a convenient way to divide the material into reasonable chunks, but I'm certainly open to changing the section titles. I've written a number of Featured Articles and Good Articles on synagogues, and the sectioning in each depends on the material; for Temple Sinai (Oakland, California) I sectioned based on the rabbis; for Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes I used centuries, and within that descriptions of what was happening in the synagogue at that period; for Congregation Beth Elohim I used a mix of locations, rabbis, and eras; Beth Hamedrash Hagodol was a mix. Sticking to a chronological flow, what section titles would you suggest? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)