Talk:Papyrus 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Papyrus 1 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Restoration of page

I undeleted this page because it was deleted far too hastily, without giving the page's original author time to respond. It's likely that this material can be edited or changed to a stub, rather than deleting it less than 24 hours later. But regardless of the final outcome, there should be a bit more chance for discussion before the entire page is deleted like that. (Note that there was no prior comment on this page at all.) Wesley 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I tried to write 5 or so articles on the ancient papyrus manuscripts and was deleted before I could go into the articles and update them.

LoveMonkey 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, providential. I just thought I'd put time into building up a series of articles on the same topic. I've put up a table at New Testament papyrus. As we write articles, we can add links to them in the table. I set up the infobox also. Several of the manuscripts relate to one-another, which will give cross-linking. I'll also put some work into stubs for the Libraries that house the papyri, that'll give some extra links in to these pages also. Alastair Haines 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha who knew wikipedia had their own saints. LoveMonkey 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

I think the system Papyrus # is best. P# (papyrus) is awkward. I'm keen to adopt the existing system. The Magdalen papyrus and John Rylands papyrus should probably be moved to the locations currently held by redirects. Any comments? Alastair Haines 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. LoveMonkey 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency isn't always the first consideration, according to wikipedia naming conventions. We are supposed to use the most common name. And I think Magdalen may be more common than P64/67. Consider the uncials, some of them have very common names, while others are just numbers or letters. For example, it would be inappropriate to change the name of Codex Claromontanus to Uncial 06. Therefore, I think we should consider each papyrus individually, and determine what is the most common name for the manuscript. We can always create redirects and disambiguation pages to help those who may be searching for a less common name.-Andrew c 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alistair here's a list of all of the articles I was going to write but they got deleted by Andrew c twice. [1] LoveMonkey 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are still welcome to write articles on those papyri. My removing (different from deleting) of redlinks (which I only did once on that article, mind you) has no bearing on your ability to start new articles. I'd really appreciate it if you could try not to take jabs at me whenever possible. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)