Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)

Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio

There is also a Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio. I am thinking of editing this article to include that congegation as well. It by the way is also reform temple. Below, is the website:

http://www.templeisrael.org

What does everyone else think??WacoJacko 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Temple Israel in Staten Island / Section needs work

This section needs some work obviously. It has no content, just a title for the section. I will try to research this to try and improve the section. Also, maybe we can expand this article beyond a stub.WacoJacko (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any input??WacoJacko (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Set index article vs. disambig

This article seems to be a wp:sia rather than a disambiguation page. It certainly does not comply with guidelines for disambiguation pages (wp:MOSDAB). So I'll change its categorization, and start, also, a disambiguation page, at Temple Israel (disambiguation). doncram (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Temple Israel in Merrit Island, Florida

you should write about him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.199.182 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Move the above comments to Talk: Temple Israel?

The above sections don't relate to Temple Israel in Tulsa and were part of the talk page for the former Temple Israel set index article, which has now been replaced by a disambiguation page. Should these be moved to the talk page of the new disambiguation page? If so, what is the correct way to do this?--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The move was a) probably inappropriate to do at all, as the list-article / Set Index Article was okay, and b) was done badly, moving the edit history to a clearly inappropriate location. I'll open a multiple pages requested move to fix all. --doncram (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably makes sense to do so. The previous article wasn't a proper Set Index Article, and the move was done properly, moving the edit history to the clearly appropriate article. I've commented to that effect in the requested move section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing before this mushrooms even farther out of control. Arxiloxos has summarized the situation well: an unusual history led to an unusual situation, but it can be fixed fairly easily. Consensus of users who are not focused on beating a dead horse is that "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" should remain as an article about that one synagogue, "Temple Israel" should be a disambiguation page, and most of the contents of this talk page should be associated with "Temple Israel." No one is at fault here; please move on... Orlady (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) → Temple Israel and
Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp → Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) and
Temple Israel → deleted

— The "Temple Israel" article in its latest version before moves just now, was a valid wp:SIA set index article, in lieu of a disambiguation page. It had 14 footnotes. It was just moved inappropriately IMO to "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" by an editor who then created a new disambiguation page at "Temple Israel". I think the editor did not understand there can be either a SIA or a DAB page. If there was a proposal to change the SIA to a DAB, that could be considered, but the page history should not be moved to Tulsa! I request undoing of all the moves. The current new version of the Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) page should perhaps be copied to a user page to save it, if it includes new editing. --doncram (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) doncram (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment: The current new version of the Tulsa, Oklahoma article was copied to Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp and is to be moved to the "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" name after the current article, with its history, is restored and moved back to the main list article name, "Temple Israel". --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Object. I had no idea that this would be at all controversial, but the proposed move makes no sense. "Temple Israel" is not a WP:SIA; there is no "specific type" of synagogue that is a "Temple Israel" type of synagogue. It just happens to be a common name for a set of completely unrelated synagogues, much like Temple Beth-El, Temple Sinai, Congregation Tifereth Israel etc., all of which are properly represented by disambiguation pages. The previous version of the Temple Israel article really only had significant information about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) - 9 of the 14 references were about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and all of the 5 other "references" were just blind links to synagogue home pages, not even proper references. Even worse, not one of these homepages actually backed up the all claims being attributed it; in other words, they were false references too. The only legitimate information in the article was about Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), but in order to better comply with GFDL, rather than simply cutting and pasting the information into a new article, I moved the existing article so that the history was all retained, and created a proper disambiguation page in its place. Finally, the current Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) is a proper article, so it makes no sense at all to copy it to a user page; what on earth would be the point? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, skip the saving of the Tulsa article, which i thot incorrectly had new material developed by Jayjg. The material is in the main Temple Israel SIA article which should be restored by the reverting. By the way, discussion further above shows that i also created Temple Israel (disambiguation) when encountering the list-article, myself. I think i was just getting used to SIAs and DABs since then. I do agree that the SIA could use some development / care, but effectively deleting it without due process seems wrong. I think reverting is the right thing to do now, but I will listen to other comments. --doncram (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why "skip the saving of the Tulsa article"? It's a perfectly good article, which belongs on Wikipedia, and has been cleaned up and had the proper categories and infobox added, with relevant data like geolocation, address, leadership, etc. Why on earth would one userfy or delete a proper, standalone article? Why would all the other "Temple Israel" articles be allowed to be standalones, but not this specific one? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I suggested moving the list-article back to its name, and i added a note towards ensuring that the info i thot u developed on the Tulsa one should not be lost. You seemed to object to saving that separately, and i realised that there was no info, that the info would still reside in the list-article. I amend the proposal above. The proposal was meant with no prejudice about your splitting out a separate article on the Tulsa one. I objected to converting the list-article to an article about just one of the places. It defies logic, given some edit history and development of the list as a list. It's fine to split out articles as new named articles. The requested move, with amendment to save the separate Tulsa article differently according to your wishes, is now what I support. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that Jayjg's intended result makes sense: as separate articles were written about the other notable Temples Israel, the SIA page dwindled down to the point that it essentially contained the Tulsa content, some redirects, and a couple of paragraphs about other temples without any indicia of notability. Jayjg's edits to the new Tulsa page (an infobox and added categories) are valuable and should not be lost. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer as to where the history of the old SIA page belongs. My only concern was what to do with the talk page comments, none of them relating to Tulsa; but really, there's not much of anything there, so query whether it would make more sense to simply archive the existing comments and move on. Or alternatively, delete [[Talk:Temple Israel]], move [[Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)]] to [[Talk:Temple Israel]], and then replace the resulting redirect with a new [[Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)]]?--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The SIA article does not have to dwindle down, it can be a list-article about Temples Israel that includes description about each one. If it covers all Temple Israel places having Wikipedia articles, then the SIA serves readers well providing disambiguation between places (and obviating a separate disambiguation page) and also providing further information as an interesting-to-some list. This is an obvious RM to restore a list-article. The list-article should not be deleted without an PROD or other deletion process (to which i would object because it is a decent SIA topic). --doncram (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I restored the list article. Note this restores substantial info that was simply lost before, for example sections on the Alameda, California one and on the Staten Island one, both sourced. Those do not require separate articles; they function fine as sections in a list-article. Info on the Alameda one came up near top of a Google search on "Temple Israel". The suggested dab page (which I suggest be deleted) shows no mention of this. I'll also copy the Tulsa, Oklahoma one's info to Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)/Temp, to clarify for u that it will not be lost. --doncram (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article about this topic, the Tulsa, Oklahoma article. You've removed a great deal of valuable information on this topic, and no-one actually supports your suggested changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I copied the entire Tulsa version of the article to a Temp page, and modified the RM request. What info to you feel is lost?

Note, i felt restoring the list-article was appropriate, when i realized that the changes implemented by Jayjg had actually lost considerable information, not covered in any separate article, namely the info in the list-articles sections on Temples Israel that do not have separate articles. That makes it pretty obvious to me, anyhow, that the set index article was fine. It was inappropriate to move it and recast it to cover just Tulsa, losing all the other info and the navigation it provided. The separate dab page that was created has less info, and is not needed if the SIA is in place. I copied the entire new Tulsa page to the Temp version.

The Tulsa-specific version of this page was restored by Jayjg and i reverted that. Also it was restored by Orlady and i reverted that. I requested in my last edit summary that Jayjg make any further development in the Temp version of the Tulsa article. This is the correct place to discuss the structure of these several articles. Please discuss here. Orlady, in particular, please consider the history of this article (until a day or two ago a Set-index-article) and consider your views. Given your views about preferring SIAs to dabs + list-articles elsewhere, I would actually think you would support this being restored. The alternative is, i guess, a dab plus a new List article (of set-index or other type), cut off from its history of edits. No one is disputing whether Tulsa one can have an article; it's just wrong to create it over the list-article, usurping the edit history there. --doncram (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.