Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cruciform

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Cruciform

Dicdef; probably cannot ever be a true article. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: dicdef -- Zwilson 23:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia naming policy is to link adjectives to the proper noun, so I vote for a redirect to cross. Livajo 00:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'm not sure. It's not strictly a dictdef, since it explains cruciform architecture, but that's all it explains -- suggesting that this article arose as an adjunct to the Cathedral design article. Delete, as the worthy material belongs back with cathedrals. Redirect not necessary. Geogre 00:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into cathedral architecture, then redirect to cross. -Sean Curtin 00:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into cathedral architecture, then replace text with Cruciform means having the shape of a cross or some such (i.e., don't just redirect -- someone wanting to know what "cruciform" means won't be well-served by ending up at "cross" without a notion of the connection between the two). Wile E. Heresiarch 03:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly this refers to Christian cross, any redirect or link should probably go there.--Samuel J. Howard 04:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• "Cruciform" also refers to (or used to, at any rate) some kinds of vegetables; broccoli, etc. Any redirect should mention that. Fire Star 05:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Plants of the mustard family are sometimes called crucifers, so called because the flowers have four petals in the shape of a cross. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• keep and do not rediredt, nor merge. The idea has application to more than just cathedral architecture, which I will show by adding to the article. KeyStroke 08:24, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
• If it can be expanded, keep. Bear in mind that this is (or should be) not just about cathedrals but about churches of all sizes. --Phil | Talk 09:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rename to get rid of adjectival name. 'Cruciform shape', maybe? It neither refers just to cathedrals, as has already been pointed out, nor just to Christian crosses. -- Necrothesp 10:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. At first glance, seems to be a dicdef. Having looked at it a second time, it looks like it should be merged and redirected to the cathedral diagram article. --Viriditas 08:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The current juxtaposition of topics (cathedral architecture and city planning) is very odd. The cathedral stuff should probably be saved somewhere, while the city planning comment seems generally unnecesary. Isomorphic 17:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• "Cruciform" does not refer specifically to a Christian cross, but to anything in that shape- the term can equally be applied to an early Han dynasty building with four wings (or, apparently, to a broccoli). The article as it stands seems to lack something, though. I'd say merge and redirect to something- I can't see this article by itself getting more than a dicdef. -FZ 19:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. This would certainly classify a merge or link in the Archetype article. Otherwise, it's a dicdef, so merge and redirect somewhere or delete. --Viriditas 08:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a dictionary definition, not an article. Also implies city layout of Washington, DC was cruciform by design as the Keystroke argues on my talk page. I refute this. - Polynova 08:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. That addition was utter nonsense, and actually a misleading way to demonstrate the idea. Cruciform is a term almost exclusively used in architecture. As such, I think this entry can progess beyond a dicdef by documenting the history of cruciform designs, notable ones, and so forth. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Whatever we do with this, do not redirect to something like cross. An article needs to exist for this, and redirects discourage creation. It's a commonly used word in architecture and does indeed apply to non-cathedral churches (see: Salt Lake Assembly Hall—an article I wrote, I'm afraid). Cruciform plans exist outside of cathedral/gothic architecture, so a redirect to christian cross is awful. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.