Talk:Pastoral epistles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal Pastoral epistles is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I have assembled all material from First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy and Epistle to Titus here, with minimal tweaking, meaning not to edit until everyone is satisfied that the three Pastoral Epistles can be treated as a group, with subsections for material that concerns them individually. After a while, the former entries (content now duplicative) can be converted to redirects. The individual books remain in the Category:New Testament books, with an additional category, Pastoral epistles. --Wetman 03:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops. I wouldn't have linked to the individual articles in the lead paragraph had I read this first. Sounds like a fine plan, at least unless/until there's enough content to make it worth splitting. Seems unlikely for the near term at least. Wesley 23:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links are always useful. I have so recently labored (perhaps in vain) to bring these three epistles together precisely because they cannot be completely understood individually. Individually one cannot even arrive at a sensible date for their composition. It seems too easy at Wikipedia to split up information thoughtlessly, without concern for context. The idea of a "long' article at Wikipedia seems to be about 1500 words! --Wetman 03:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I added the Attention tag to the article. I noticed that large sections were blank, and that a version of the article several edits old ([1]) was significantly longer. It doesn't look like the article was simply vandalized, but it's clear that SOMETHING happened to it, and neither the talk page nor the article history mentions what that was. Would someone more familiar with Wikipedia please take a look at it? 134.10.44.199 05:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Never did get around to the next few steps, did I? Thanks for reminding me.

The new structure is better. Of course, structure is useless without content. A.J.A. 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out. I went to Page history, compared a December version with the current one, and by choosing "edit" and then "save" replaced the vandalized version with the previous good one. Thanks! --Wetman 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:VAND, removing my comment here [2] was vandalism. Don't commit vandalism anymore, and especially don't vandalize the talk page to make your false accusation of vandalism against me more credible. A.J.A. 21:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As you said, structure is useless without content. Since your re-structuring removed a significant amount of content, including citations, and it's been over a month without anything further being added, I reverted it to the previous version. Wesley 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed title change

The title "Pastoral Epistles" should be changed to "Pastoral epistles", because it is a description of the three books, not the proper name of a book. If there is no objection shortly, I will make the move. --Blainster 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems right: a category rather than a title. Rather a lot of double redirects to fix, though. --Wetman 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work through them. --Blainster 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. It seems to me that theological writers sometimes have a habit of capitalizing various nouns as an indicator of importance or emphasis. (Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis. see WP:MOS). In English, nouns should generally only be capitalized only if they are proper names, or part of a title. Now in French only the first word of a book title would be capitalized, or if it were German all the nouns would be capitalized, so the language does make a difference. But ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no miniscule letters, so I suspect that is not the root of the problem. --Blainster 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)