Talk:Mary of Rome

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mary
''Is this going to be ever expanded ? The name is quite silly. --Taw''

This was a section in the article that also had the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, I thought it best to give those two their own articles, but what to do with this Mary? --SimonP

''I think this should just be removed. I'm sure there is already what little info this article has to offer on the Virgin Mary section.'' --Jzcool

''Its a different Mary, she was important enough to be included in Christian Encyclopedias so she should stay. The bizzare name of the article is the problem. Perhaps 'Mary of Rom. 16:6' would be better?'' --SimonP

Untitled
If it is going to be expanded to more than 1 line maybe. If there is no other info about her, then this article makes no sense. --Taw

Merge this article into the main Mary page, as a subheading? It might not be important enough to stand as its own article, but the information needs to be somewhere. -- dreamyshade

Subheading seems right. --Taw

This encyclopaedia entry title is ridiculous and silly. Is someone claiming that this person is so imporant that eventually an entire article will be written on her? Of course not. Stop writing new entries for such small things. This should be deleted, and the information moved to some other entry where it actually would be relevent.

''I agree with the guy above. This is nothing more than a dictionary entry and abuses the purpose of Wikipedia. Unless substantial info can be added, we should delete it.'' --Jzcool

What's it hurt to just leave it here? I added more information, and wikied some relevant words. --Jimbo Wales


 * It certainly hurts nothing to leave it here, where nothing redirects to it and no one who needs it will ever find it. These few lines would be well at Mary, is my opinion. --Wetman 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ..yet may I add that this is an example of dictionary thinking— Bible Dictionary in particular— and not encyclopedic thinking. Dictionary thinking divides text into small pieces, so that understanding is lost with the eliminated context.--Wetman 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The title was the best thing in the article and now it's gone, another victim of the humorless squares. Ortolan88