Talk:Temple in Jerusalem

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Msh210.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Temple in Jerusalem

It say it is in Jerusalem; with is all the "accuracy" needed. It is a dictionary def; readers can as always go to the pedia entry for lots more information.

This entry fails CFI anyway; and probably should just be deleted out of hand. Robert Ullmann 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the encyclopedic content: the entry doesn't need to say what the TiJ was the seat of. if it says anything, though, it should be accurate. I'll remove that info altogether (unless you have). I doubt it fails CFI: do you think it's not attestable or not idiomatic?—msh210℠ 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't idiomatic, it is SoP, it isn't attributive; it is an encyclopedia title. (Pyramid of Cheops? :-). It is useful in at least one definition (presumably why you created it), but that could link to the 'pedia. But I have no problem with it being there, let's just evade the "is Jerusalem part of Israel or Palestine" (either ancient or modern, in either case) issue. It isn't like there are other Jerusalems. (There are, but not likely to be confused ;-) Robert Ullmann 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just note that it's different from the Pyramid of Cheops in that it's not the Temple of Jerusalem but the Temple in Jerusalem which sounds more like any old temple in Jerusalem (but doesn't mean that). Anyway, I think you'll be satisfied with my last edit to the entry; otherwise, fix it, and I'll leave it alone unless I consider your fix egregious (not likely).—msh210℠ 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)