Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/June/28

Hasidic dynasties-stub /

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Hasidic-Judaism

Unproposed, with badly named template. Not convinced of its need, though it does have about 40 stubs - although quite a number of those would be better served in. Delete, or at the very least Rename the template. Grutness...wha?  02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Make that rescope and merge, as below. Grutness...wha?  00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  The previous comment was uninformed. None of the current articles with the Hasidic dynasties-stub could use the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism stub, but most that use the latter could use the Hasidic dynasties-stub, since Chabad is a subset of all Hasidic dynasties. This stub is very useful, and enables editors of Hasidic dynasty articles to find in one place stubs on this subject which need expanding. --Redaktor 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for automatically assuming that I'm uninformed on the subject. The point is - or more accurately, points are: 1) we've already started to split hasidism stubs in one way. To start splitting it another way will make splitting that particular stub type far harder. 2) Whether you personally find it useful is immaterial to whether it is useful overall, and even if it is, the name does not comply with stub naming and thus at a very minimum it will need to be renamed.
 * As it is, I'd be reasonably happy to see dynasties as the way to split Hasidism stubs - as long as the name is corrected - though I'd like to see it replace Chabad-stub, as that is for one branch (or dynasty, if you prefer) of Hasidism. And there certainly aren't enough stubs to satisfy two separate stub categories - Chabad-stub was always going to be pretty thin anyway, given that there are only 100 or so articles in total in the permcat parent. A better solution still would probably be to delete both and replace them with a more inclusive and potentially far more useful Hasidism-stub. Grutness...wha?  09:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename I have no objection to renaming; that is a far cry from deletion. Since Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism is a sub-catgory of Cat:Hasidic dynasties there is something to be said for absorbing the stub for the former in the stub for the latter. Hasidism-stub is probably not a good choice of name because (a) there is no Category:Hasidism and (b) the very term Hasidism engenders a great deal of heat among some editors. But there is Category:Hasidic Judaism, so would Hasidic-Judaism-stub meet the criteria? --Redaktor 10:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would - see User:Alai's comment below. Grutness...wha?  01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose For people wanting to expand on Hasidic related articles it was difficult to spot them amongst the general Judaism stub. The Chabad movement is so huge it has near individual standing in Judaism, let alone Hasidism. It has its own template on wikipedia, etc. I am sorry, but I just went ahead and created it without reading any article about stubs and therefore didn’t known about naming conventions or having to propose it either. Chesdovi 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to person closing this discussion - this is Redaktor's second !vote
 * Aren't Chesdovi and Redaktor different people? Alai 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes—I have only one identity on the English Wikipedia.--Redaktor 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ach - apologies. My eyesight must really be going! Grutness...wha?  10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are only about 100 articles on Chabad on Wikipedia. Even if half of them were stubs, it would still not be enough for a stand-alone stub template-stub category combination (60 is the threshold unless there are special extenuating circumstances). It makes good sense to merge this stub type and the chabad one into a more all-encompassing one for Hasidic Judaism. Grutness...wha?  01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename template to comply with NGs; upmerge to  (for which the suggested canonical template of Hasidic-Judaism-stub seems an excellent idea), on the basis of narrowness of scope.  Alai 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know some see Chabad as synonymous with Hassidim, but the scope is much wider than that.  DGG 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's the whole point. You did read the rationale behind the nomination, I take it? Given that one dynasty had already been split out, that was the way stub-splitting was going to proceed. having an overarching stub type running counter to that was going to interfere with that split. As it is, neither this Hasidic Dynasty stub type nor Chabad stub reaches stub-sorting threshold, thus the counterproposal of a merger into a Hasidic-Judaism-stub. Grutness...wha?  00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The stub for Chabad, which I created, and have gone to the trouble to post on many relevant pages, is justified by the fact that there is a very large amount of material and many different topics to be covered within this particular group's philosophy and history. Thus, this stub is very useful, as it enables editors of Chabad articles to find in one place stubs on this subject which need expanding. Deleting the Chabad stub would prevent this possibility.
 * As for the fact that this involves a certain discrimination in favour of Chabad, my response is simply along the lines of Chesdovi: that if another dynasty can demonstrate a similarly large number of articles (which the Chabad articles can; there are far more articles for this dynasty than others, it even has a separate template and there are more and more such articles being created regularly) then let those particular dynasties also have a stub of their own! Yehoishophot Oliver 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it was said that 60 is the threshold? There are now 60 Chabad stubs, making this whole discussion irrelevant. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "irrelevant" aside from the indisputable need to rename the template, and of course the ever-popular opportunity for making dismissive comments to fellow editors. Alai 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be dismissive; I was merely pointing out that the reason given for the proposition to remove the stub, viz. that there are not enough of them to justify a separate stub, no longer applies, as there are currently over 60 stubs in this section. Secondly, as far as I understand there is disagreement on whether to rename the Chaba ostub, as evidenced by the majority of oppose votes. This is far from "indisputable."--Yehoishophot Oliver 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people have chimed in with bolded opposes, yes. What they have not done is to in any way actually argue against following the stub naming guidelines.  Alai 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your POV, to which you're entitled. But the fact is that the consensus so far is to keep the Chabad stub, especially considering that it's now been demonstrated that there are over 60 articles with such stubs (and thus it's more than likely many more such articles to come). But please share with us precisely which stub naming guidelines you believe are not being followed. I read through the guidelines and didn't notice anything that this stub violates. Also, if the stub would be deleted, please tell us when it would qualify for being proposed again, in your view? Yehoishophot Oliver 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little more than a POV, but I do belatedly notice that neither the nominator nor myself really said what rename, or why -- our bad. Specifically, the naming guidelines require that there be no spaces in stub templates name -- this should be Hasidism-dynasty-stub, or perhaps strictly speaking Hasidicdynasty-stub, since there's no Hasidism-stub or dynasty-stub, as the former pseudo-hierarchical name would imply.  (Speaking of which, I've proposed a stub type for Hasidic Judaism topics, which would presumably become an umbrella for these bits-and-bobs types, given the keep-at-all-costs climate.)  Deletion now looks unlikely, for the reason you mention, though I'd still like to hear some detail on why this is a good scope for such a stub type, as opposed to a more broadly-scoped one.  (i.e. the sort of thing that would have been discussed had either of these been proposed in advance.)  Alai 00:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is large enough on its own.. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. Shlomke 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think that the stub is currently useful and should therefore be kept Sagtkd 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose yeah. me three. Dynastic 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename rename to more inclusive Hasidic-Judaism-stub. --Eliyak T · C 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

England-peer-stub

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete

Unnecessary. Unproposed template added to "parent only" stub category. All stubs which would be within it use one of the subtypes quite happily. Talking of which, those categories need a rename (see below). Delete. Grutness...wha?  02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I created it because I assumed that its absence was an oversight: the text in Category:Peerage of England stubs says: "To add an article to this category, use England-peer-stub instead of stub". I now realise that is automatically added by the template, but if that text remains then so should the template. I would be happy for the template to be deleted if the category text is replaced with something which explains the intent of Category:Peerage of England stubs as a "parent only" stub category (if there isn't an existing template for this, there ought to be). However it's silly to have a category saying "please use this template" if the intention is that the template shoukd never be created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As creator (apparently), put me down as a strong who knows? and easy either way. Alai 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename of English noble stub categories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not rename

The current titles are very clumsy. If the above suggestions are too ambiguous, perhaps +c or even just  +c would be better. Grutness...wha?  02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * &rarr;
 * Strongly oppose first and third suggestions as massively ambiguous and highly confusing; oppose second as yet-more-tortured than the present name. If renamed at all, let's keep in mind that the parents are at, etc, and have some modicum of compliance (unless a rename of those is to be contemplated), or a change in scope.  Alai 04:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose first and third suggestions as highly misleading: there are plenty of English Earls, Dukes and Barons whose peerages were created in the Peerage of Great Britain or the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and the category names must be explicit that the word "England" relates to the Peerage of England rather than to the nationality of the title-holder. Per Alai, is more clumsy than the current name. Further, a consistent naming structure should be retained for all the subcats of Category:British nobility stubs, and the current names keep that consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing note These categories are not to be renamed to any of the suggestions.  This does not mean that they cannot be renamed in the future.  ~ Amalas  rawr  =^_^=  15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.