Talk:Hebrew calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

on/in - (Why are two different prepositions used (started two paragraphs, one after the other): In the Hebrew calendar... . I think this could confuse English learners. Kdammers (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair question. I think that in Standard English, both can be used in different settings, and don't mean quite the same thing. But you're probably right, and both should probably be "on". I'll give it some thought for a few minutes, then decide one way or the other. Do you have a preference? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kdammers: I've read this again and thought about it some more. If I were writing Standard English I'd leave this alone. To my way of thinking, in this context, "in" refers to a description of a component of the hidden, inner workings of the calendar (thus in). "On" is something that one sees out in public view, as on a printed calendar.
However, at simplewiki, I can see why that might be confusing. I could argue that such inconsistency is a regular feature of English, so that English learners ought to get used to it. At the same time, I want this to be understandable.
So I'm going to defer to your judgment. If you think these should definitely be the same, I will change them both to in. (The second paragraph works with "in", but the first doesn't work so well with "on".) If you are comfortable with my leaving the two different, I'd prefer that.
Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking about this. I think that simplicity should override nuance here, so I think it should be changed. Maybe we can get some input from some other people.Kdammers (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
While we're waiting for others to weigh in, do you have any other thoughts about this? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review[change source]

Sorry for the long delay. Here are some comments after a read-through of this article. For context, I didn't refer to EN, and am not a Jew myself.

  • From lede: "The daily Jewish prayer service changes ..." - to confirm, does this refer to Musaf?
That's arguably the most significant difference, but there are several others. Recitation or omission of the supplicatory prayer (Tahanun) and inclusion or omission of prayers for rain are two other important ones. I didn't write the lede, but thought that was a good, simple summary of the situation. I can expand on that if you think appropriate.
I think the lede of the article is well-written as it is. Additional information might be better added to Service_of_worship#Judaism, if there's time, but otherwise I don't think it's a big problem. Chenzw  Talk  13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I actually first came to simplewiki to try to work on Judaism articles, and should really get back to some important ones. That's one of many I want to get a handle on. I should probably start making a list. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • From History: "Only four month names from before the Babylonian Exile ... , and all are Canaanite names." - the sentence syntax seems to imply that "all are Canaanite names" is part of the list of the four month names.
I take your point. I'll clean that up.
 Done 18:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • From History: "first, literally "spring", but originally probably meant the ripening of barley" - what is the significance of the use of barley? Why not another crop (if any)? While this point shouldn't impede the article's promotion to GA, I think this is something that could be explained further, and may need a reference due to "probably meant" (are there opposing viewpoints?).
Barley is the early grain crop in Israel, and the Torah prescribes an offering from the first barley crop on the second day of Passover. Passover is described as needing to be "in the month of Aviv," and regardless of which meaning comes first, is the reason for the use of an intercalation regime. (In fact, Karaite Jews still decide on intercalation by looking at the barley crop.) I think the agricultural use probably precedes, but I don't have a source for that (neither does enwiki), and the meaning "spring" is still quite old.
I think both meanings are relevant to the topic, but the question as to which meaning preceded the other is not so relevant. So let's go with something like first, literally "spring", and particularly meaning "the [season of the] ripening of barley". Does that work?
Yes, that works fine, and clarifies the statement better. Chenzw  Talk  13:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • From section "Regular years and leap years": ok, I was writing this while doing my second read-through of the article, and this part is where I broke my rule about referring to EN (I was initially concerned that Metonic cycle is a red link): the Metonic cycle is not unique to the Hebrew calendar, but the wording seemed to imply otherwise. To put it another way, the Hebrew calendar's addition of the thirteenth month does not make the Metonic cycle; rather, the Hebrew calendar applies the Metonic cycle to add a thirteenth month seven times every cycle of nineteenth years, so that the lunar and solar years "match".
I certainly didn't mean to imply uniqueness, but I take your point. I'll do something with that. I will likely also write a stub about the Metonic cycle when I'm done with this.
 Done 18:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be doing another read-through another day, focusing on the more technical aspects (grammar, wikisyntax etc.). At this point, I don't see any other major problems for GA, though. --Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest and effort! StevenJ81 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Technical[change source]

Here are some notes about possible technical issues. Sorry for the delay, again.

  • In section "Days of the Hebrew calendar week" - I am not so sure about the use of the dotted border between the last and second-last column. Would it better serve its purpose if the dotted border was between the 2nd and 3rd column, instead?
  • The use of Unicode fraction characters is deprecated due to the limited choices available in Unicode and potential appearance-normalization issues arising from its usage mixed with MathML (<math>) usage. (en:WP:MOS:FRAC)
    • I have made the changes already, and yeah, I will have to bring it up to ST about their removal from the character palette.

--Chenzw  Talk  18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I have no problem with "a newer, better model of fractions". (smile)
As to the dotted border, I guess the point I was trying to make here is that those two columns constitute the beginning and end of each day of the Hebrew calendar according to the conventional, midnight-to-midnight standard. So to some extent those two columns are a single unit. At the same time, I wanted a physical border between them for clarity and consistency. I'm not seeing why you would place a dotted line between the second and third columns, but I'm certainly willing to understand the reason for that, if you don't mind elaborating. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the idea behind those two columns being treated as a single unit. I guess what I had in mind was a bit unconventional–to use the dotted border as a "special" border separating the last two columns (the single unit) from the rest. Now after reading again, I agree that the current implementation makes more sense. Chenzw  Talk  03:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)