Talk:Bible translations into the languages of China

Article blanking

 * (cur | prev) 00:10, 6 January 2014‎ TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45 bytes) (-6,235)‎ . . (Undid revision 589367120 by In ictu oculi (talk) still no indication this is a notable subject on its own) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 00:07, 6 January 2014‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,280 bytes) (+6,235)‎ . . (Undid revision 589122551 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:52, 4 January 2014‎ TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45 bytes) (-6,235)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Bible translations into Chinese) (undo | thank)
 * I have left a message on the User's Talk page. There seems to be no logical justification for the blanking. The edit summary "still no indication this is a notable subject on its own" uses "still" but there was no discussion of notability to refer to. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that this cut of data points is a notable perspective. Plus the lack of sourcing for all the entries.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest that you take it to AfD. Redirecting it to an inappropriate page about a different language, and edit-warring to do that three times, is far from a constructive action. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From above and from the edit warring TheRedPenOfDoom is doing at the related article, and on several other articles, I think perhaps the best approach is to investigate whether a Topic Ban is called for. The article when TheRedPenOfDoom twice blanked it had the following sources:
 * Strandenaes Principles of Chinese Bible translation 1987 "For the translation into the Han Chinese dialects and the tribal languages of China, see Broomhall 1934. 98-133."
 * Gospel according to St. Mark in Naxi Authors, Samuel Pollard, Elise Schapten, British and Foreign Bible Society. Publisher, British & Foreign Bible Society, 1932. Length, 139 pages
 * Then TheRedPenOfDoom, rather than apologizing for not having actually looked at the article's sources which make it clear the article is about languages plural not just Mandarin added these 2 tags. '''The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Bible translations into the languages of China" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images (January 2014) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2014).
 * In what sense could Bible translations into the languages of China possibly not be notable? And what in particular prompts "This article needs additional citations for verification." This has all the hallmarks of disruptive combative editing rather than actually building the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't need deleted, but can anyone explain to me why it wouldn't be preferable to merge this into Bible translations into Chinese? They are obviously related topics, and I can't see why this one would be split out.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've said this twice now; I can't see why you can't understand it, but clearly you don't. This article is about translations into languages other than Chinese. There is more than one language used in China. The translation of the Bible into Welsh has a well-known history too, would you suggest merging that into Bible translations into English? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't Chinese one of the languages of China? Why separate it out from the others? Wouldn't bother me a bit if this became the parent article and Bible translations into Chinese became the redirect.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese is separated out so that Red Pen isn't quite so likely to tag it as "not notable", as he's already done here in a fit of childish petulance.
 * Per entirely reasonable editing practice, balance and WP:UNDUE, it's noted here under See also.
 * If you're suggesting merging the two articles (hey, third try lucky) instead of either redirecting or deleting it, then you know where the merge tags are. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Friends-- There are some possible misunderstandings. First, blanking the page to make a redirect to Bible translations into Chinese, with no explanation, may have been on the misunderstanding that there was a list of translations on that page, rather than at List of Chinese Bible translations. Second, if there is a feeling that the article is not WP:NOTABLE, it should be discussed, as there are points on either side. In any case, is still good practice look for Alternatives to Deletion, as per WP:ATD.
 * So to meet the legitimate concerns all around, let me propose that this article be merged into a new section of List of Chinese Bible translations, that perhaps that article be moved to List of Bible translations into the languages of China. This would make the material on this page easier to find and put the material on both pages into a wider context (many of the languages of China are not Mandarin, and have some of the same problems).
 * A further source or sources should be added, as well. I know of good scholarly sources on Sam Pollard, for instance. If this (or a revised version) meets general approval, I will go ahead and make this merge in one week. Cheers, ch (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:CWH thank you for your comments, I hope you don't mind I have deleted some white space in your answer per normal Talk Page formatting. There is some discussion history behind the article category here. Originally most of the articles in Category:Bible translations by language were bunched together in one unwieldy long list, but after discussion among WP Bible and WP Languages editors they were broken out into standalone articles about 3 years ago. That left some languages - mainly tribal languages, Indonesia, China, North America "bunched" into articles that may still appear list-like in some respects but have text content as normal articles and commonality between the different tribal translations. For example men like Sam Pollard worked on several languages. Hence the current shape of articles in the category. It would need to go back to the original category discussion which is at Talk:List of Bible translations by language. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * what do you know - redirection to a more notable topic IS an alternative to deletion as clearly listed at WP:ATD. WOW! and redirection is NOT a deletion. WOW again! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:TheRedPenOfDoom
 * Why are you using language like "what do you know" "WOW!" "WOW again!" - you were asked why you blanked a sourced article twice, these terms do not help answer the question. Why did you twice blank a sourced article?
 * (1) Please, for context, have you before blanked sourced articles with a substantial edit history and then blanked again when challenged? If so can you please give diffs to a couple of examples.
 * (2) In any case, do you now understand the difference between Languages of China and Chinese language? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) What I mean is that I cannot believe that someone is accusing me of something I most certainly did NOT do - delete the article. And THEN says that I should follow the WP:ATD page, which is in fact what I had done.
 * Do you know the difference between deletion and redirection?
 * And do you know the WP:BURDEN policy which requires an inline citation for all content that has been challenged before it is restored?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:TheRedPenOfDoom
 * Answer point 1: Yes I am aware of the difference between WP:deletion and WP:redirection, which is why I specifically used the term "blank" when I asked you why you blanked the article. My general understanding is that WP:Deletion is something which constructive editors follow via process, such in the case of sourced articles as WP:AFD, wheras blanking and redirection of sourced articles is a behaviour that leads editors who repeatedly exhibit this editing behaviour and persist when requested to discuss to remedies such as RFC/U or ANI and if needed sanctions such as a Topic Ban.
 * Answer point 2, I am familiar with WP:BURDEN, but that is why we have tags, and you also blanked the sourced content, so this is not really the issue here, is it.
 * Now I have answered your question, please answer mine:
 * (1) Please, for context, have you before blanked sourced articles with a substantial edit history and then blanked again when challenged? If so can you please give diffs to a couple of examples.
 * (2) do you now understand the difference between Languages of China and Chinese language?
 * Please address these questions directly in your next edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * RedPen -- apologies, but could you state your position in a straightforward way, without WP:SHOUTING? I genuinely do not follow your meaning.
 * On the WP:ATD page I find that the first alternative to deletion is Editing and Discussion, then Tagging, then Merging. Next is Redirection: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect," but "if the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the Talk Page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect."  Thus 1) This is not an "unsuitable article," 2) Other actions come first.


 * In Ictu: I take your point about the need to fit into larger schemes. Still, the present article does use the phrase "Languages of China," but does not include, say, Mandarin, which seems a problem, though perhaps not the worst one around. Is there some other way of dealing with this?
 * By the way, if you look at the Contributions of RedPen, you will see that they are numerous and serious. These contributions will encourage you to Assume Good Faith. She or he has real points to make about the Bible translation articles in spite of the shouting and condescension. I would take what initially seems to be arrogance and lack of collegiality as a tin ear, but mostly as haste and impatience in trying to improve Wikipedia. So let's try to work together with him or her by looking beyond tone and sticking to policy. ch (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible User:TheRedPenOfDoom is simply having a bad day. This is not an editor I know other than the other current edit war issues on his/her Talk page. But the bad day needs to stop now. These translation articles exist as a result of long term collegiate work by several editors over 3 years and simply repeatedly blanking one of medium-importance articles in the category and WOW! etc is not the way forward. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mandarin
Fixed, the mention of Chinese translations is now blue-linked to the Bible translations into Chinese article. And a see also and main added under C. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)