Talk:Matthew 1:2

message: This article has survived a Vote for Deletion.  For more details see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. --Allen3 talk July 9, 2005 13:38 (UTC)
:Oh. Really? If that's so, can we get rid of the template on the article page? I just voted there before looking here. Other people may follow suit if it's not off the page.--ViolinGirl♪ 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD Results

message: The AfD was closed as a merge. As I count the the votes, there were:
*8 KEEP (SimonP, Dan, Doc glasgow, Choalbaton, Tvaughn05, Dsmdgold, ViolinGirl, and DJ Clayworth) (40%)
*9 MERGE (Esprit15d, Uncle G, Ruud, Grimm, NaconKantari, Kerowyn, T-Boy, RJHall, and Jaranda) (45%)
*3 Delete (Phroziac, Johnleemk, Logophile) (15%)
Which is a no consensus. When asked about the reason for his, closing the closing admin replied "No consensus defaults to keep. It does not preclude merging or redirection. Full stop. If people want the article back so badly, they can undo the redirect/merge (if the closing admin happens to be in a merging mood). If people want the article merged and redirected so badly, they can undo the default keep (if the closing admin didn't happen to be in a merging mood)."
Accordingly, I have undone the redirect. Dsmdgold 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by the result as well. However, the people who voted delete would most likely see this merged and redirected now, and one or more of the people who voted keep wouldn't mind merging and redirecting as well. —Ruud 14:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but combining the merge and delete votes is still only 60%, which is also No Consensus.  Doc voted Keep with merge as a second choice only and shouldn't be counted as a vote to merge. Dsmdgold 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if someone would merge this article, there woudn't be a concensus to unmerge either... —Ruud 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but then we would no longer be in the realm of AfD. It seemed to me that the closing admin in his response was issuing an invitation to be bold, so I was.  Dsmdgold 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm the first to admit that this is currently a very stubby article, but there are important advantages to consistency, which a merge eliminates. Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 1:3 are both considerably more substantial, but by merging the one in the middle you make it considerably harder to read them in series. - SimonP 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still have a problem imagining why this wouldn't all fit into a single article. Having an article on each and every verse would just seem a maintenance hell (no pun intended) to me. —Ruud 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can't overestimate just how much there is to write about many verses. I've really just been scratching the surface, and many of them, such as Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19 are already quite substantial articles on their own. - SimonP 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I still see a problem with the translations, what if someone want to include more translations? You would have no defence. —Ruud 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extra translations are not a bad thing, for instance these verses should all certainly contain a copy in the original Greek. If the article became overburdened we could move the extra ones to a page on Wikisource and have a link, with only a couple representative examples. The choice of examples is really fairly limited. The KJV is still unquestionably the best known version, and still the primary wording used in many contexts. We also do need a modern version as the language and theology of the KJV is 400 years out of date. Unfortunately there is no other choice as the WEB as it is, to my knowledge, the only public domain modern translation.  This is too bad as the WEB is really quite poor when compared with most other modern versions. - SimonP 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD, Merge