Talk:List of Biblical names
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Proper Names
Since there are no PROPER names starting with Y in the text consulted, it seems like this page should be omitted, as W and X were. What does somebody else think? Tbarron
I also think this page should be omitted. In English, there are no names in the Bible that begin with Y. Oh, and the fact that yarn and year begin with y is pretty irrelevant. Danny
YHWH Vera Cruz
You mean Jehovah. Regardless of what I think of English versions of Hebrew names, YHWH is not a name in English. Danny
Its still a biblical name that somebody might come looking for and they should be able to find it here in Y, and click on it to go to Jehovah. Vera Cruz
-yeah, im doing some of these out of the Wikipedia Redirects policy, for picking up hits. the different spellings are all used, and 'propriety, tbaron, is quite a subjective thing ---Sv
One should probably note what language the alternate spellings are in, if known. Vera Cruz
Propriety is indeed a subjective thing, Sv. On the other hand, the notion of a proper name is pretty well defined, and it doesn't have anything to do with propriety -- it's the name of a unique person, place, or object (as opposed to the name of a class of persons, places, or objects, like oranges and seesaws and carpenters and islands, which are not capitalized). So, for example, Yeshua is a proper name, one I didn't think of when I made my first statement above. However, the first page in this sequence states that the names in these pages were taken from a particular public domain resource -- a particular text of the Bible -- that apparently does not contain any proper names that start with Y. To be consistent, we need to either update the first page to say this listing is of all proper names from any version of the Bible (and then update all the pages in the sequence with all the variations of proper names from all versions of the Bible), or we need to be faithful to the stated source and remove the "Y" page. I can be happy with either, I'd just like the 'pedia to be consistent. What think ye? Tbarron
[edit] Not everyone... ambiguity
Re: "note that not everyone in the Bible is named." -- Does this mean that not everyone in the bible has a name (which would be a pointless comment) or that "not everyone mentioned in the Bible is listed"? Elf | Talk 21:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- not have a name ? Interesting concept. I've been told that "In some cultures, like Navajo, personal names as we know them don't even exist".
- I think it's trying to say that, for example, Cain's wife and the wise men (Balthasar ?) and "the Pharaoh" are mentioned in the Bible, and probably each had a name, but the Bible neglects to mention their names. I'm not sure that's so pointless -- many books and plays have a "list of names" that exhaustively list every character, even if it's "man in crowd #5". Maybe someday wikipedians will build such an exhaustive list of every person in the Bible. That list would exclude names such as Ebenezer (Um, Eben-Ezer ?) since (at least in the Bible) they don't refer to people. -- DavidCary 06:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I tried to remove the ambiguity -- but please replace my text with a much shorter and better note. -- DavidCary 06:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why are there no names beginning with C(e.g. Cain)? Is it similar to the reasons already commented on for there being none beginning with Y?
[edit] In Bible but not?
When it says "Some people in the Bible aren't listed here, because their names are not in the Bible.", what on earth does it mean? If someone is in the Bible, their name is in the Bible, otherwise how would we know their name? I'm hoping this was supposed to mean something else. Unless I'm just not getting it when it's blantantly obvious, perhaps this should be rephrased or elaborated upon.
- To elaborate, not everyone mentioned in the Bible is named. 68.225.240.87 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Veronica, perhaps? --Peter Farago 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Protected
List of Biblical names is currently protected from being edited to avoid blanking by a vandal. -- PFHLai 03:44, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
- Unprotected now. -- PFHLai 18:02, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of redirects
- Discussion moved from Redirects for deletion until there is consensus on whether to delete these.
- List of Biblical names starting with A
- List of Biblical names starting with B
- List of Biblical names starting with C
- List of Biblical names starting with D
- List of Biblical names starting with E
- List of Biblical names starting with F
- List of Biblical names starting with G
- List of Biblical names starting with H
- List of Biblical names starting with I
- List of Biblical names starting with J
- List of Biblical names starting with K
- List of Biblical names starting with L
- List of Biblical names starting with M
- List of Biblical names starting with N
- List of Biblical names starting with O
- List of Biblical names starting with P
- List of Biblical names starting with Q
- List of Biblical names starting with R
- List of Biblical names starting with S
- List of Biblical names starting with T
- List of Biblical names starting with U
- List of Biblical names starting with V
- List of Biblical names starting with Y
- List of Biblical names starting with Z
- I've combined all of these stubs into one List of Biblical names article. Deletion is necessary to simplify searching (these 26 articles clutter many internal and external search results). -- Netoholic @ 03:53, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose as this would destroy a lot of history. There are other solutions to this problem, such as marking redirect pages as no archive. Or, even better, we could introduce an archive flag that any user can set or clear for any article. anthony (see warning) 14:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Concur, keep. There is a ton of history on each of these pages, and merging them all into one giant history would be Very Bad (unreadable/unusuable). Noel 22:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, there may be a good case for getting rid of them as redirs (I have no big opinion either way), but we can still keep the history, e.g. by moving them to the Talk: space, and linking to them from Talk:List of Biblical names. What do people think of that? Noel 20:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I checked down through J, and nothing links to them except Wikipedia:List of lists, which is built automatically and will drop them once they are gone. Noel 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Many of these redirects have no appreciable history, so I don't think there is any harm merging their histories back under the main List of Biblical names article. Really, the discordant histories are already unusuable in the present form, being spread out as they are. The individual edits in the history are not 'very' important, since few edits have been made to these since they were originally split off in Sep 2002. Really, this can be seen a returning the edit histories "home". -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Regrettable that the edit history doesn't make the back and forth very transparent.
We know the one letter that must have an edit history. This one should certainly be kept. As there isn't any harm done in keeping all the redirects, I'd keep them (as last time it was listed). --- User:Docu - Delete, if this discussion is still alive? It's impractical to divide this article up into 26 sub-articles (a couple of which would be empty); maybe an A-M and N-Z would be best. I don't see how the histories are important if they're just "added name, added name," so there's no reason to keep these numerous redirects. --LostLeviathan 02:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
Would perhaps a thematic categorization system work better? After all, when looking for names, I'm going to be looking for the concepts, people, and ideas the words represent, not what letter they start with. 68.225.240.87 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
