Talk:Tetragrammaton

Merge proposal of Trigrammaton to here

Initiating a discussion of merge of Trigrammaton to here (Tetragrammaton) as both seem related. On the English Wikipedia Trigrammaton is a redirect to Tetragrammaton and that is an indicator that this set-up should be mirrored on Wikiquote. To a large degree I am reasonably neutral as to whether their should be a merge of not, but it is better a discussion is made and recorded. I suggest this merge is closed after a reasonable period in all events and left as is unless there is a consensus to merge. Can someone close this after a week if there has been no input or opposition to merge. -- 21:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 21:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been proposed by Djm-leighpark that the Trigrammaton page be merged into the Tetragrammaton page. What does this imply with regard to the page for the Digrammaton, Jah? Should Jah be merged into Tetragrammaton as well? And how would the merged page be structured?

There is something else. I know from earlier discussions with administrator UDScott that he favors the principle that similar pages adhere to the same template, and I have attempted to follow this principle by structuring the Jah, Trigrammaton and Tetragrammaton pages similarly. If Trigrammaton were to be merged into Tetragrammaton, then one would need to add some extra structure in the form of additional headings in order to preserve the distinction between the Trigrammaton and the Tetragrammaton. But this would give Tetragrammaton an unique structure, which violates the principle of adhering to templates.

The reason I am asking these questions is that I cannot picture in my mind how the merge is to be done. Even if I were to carry out the merge, I have no idea how to go about it. To me, it makes sense to give the Trigrammaton its own page for the same reason that it makes sense to give the Digrammaton, Jah, its own page. BurningLibrary (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Withdraw: (proposer): Pragmatically this will now not go through. My personal view is when there is no directly associated Wikipedia article the greatest care needs to be taken the the lead section to give authority to the subject of the article. Simply saying it is a variant of something else rather than independently stressing what it is about was a problem here. The redirect on the English Wikipedia pointing to the Dead Sea Scrolls section did not provide explicit clarity - the reasoning can be determined by a non-expert by scrutiny but its hard work, at leastin my opinion. I've specificly help able to create d:Q116742239 for this article which is helpful and of course the arugment above is useful and well considered. I've made changes to the lead section of Trigrammaton but I'm open to changes on that because its not my subject and I'm actually wondering if I've minorly transgressed a MOS somewhere in that. (This is a quick reponse as I am in a rush) -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 12:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• N Not Done: Proposer now confident these should remain separate (no objection to a good faith re-opening) by someone else. -- Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 12:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)