Template:Did you know nominations/Protestant Bible

Protestant Bible
Created/expanded by Junjunone (talk). Self nom at 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the Protestant Bible follows the 1825 decision by the British and Foreign Bible Society to omit books of the Biblical apocrypha in accordance with the Westminster Confession?


 * Symbol question.svg This a 2010 article that was classified as a Disambiguation two days ago, and there's no talk page history on it. I don't know the proper process on converting from a DAB to a regular article. — Maile  (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Maile  (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the template removes it from disambiguation classification. Junjunone (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. It just needed to be noted that it changed.  Looking at what it used to be, I'm not sure why it was a DAB. — Maile  (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Most of this article is just a list of the books of the Bible, dropped into two sections like run-on sentences instead of a list format. As such, DYK check picks up the lists as prose.  — Maile  (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, there is no other location in Wikipedia where the books of the Protestant Bible are laid out without the apocrypha. If you think they would be better in "list" format, it can be spun out, but I don't see why this is an issue for DYK as I read the rules. Junjunone (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png  It's an issue because the minimum 1,500 character count for DYK excludes lists:C1 - DYK Check currently says you have 1,572 characters of readable prose, because it has counted the lists in the character count.  The books of the Bible are really not sentences, just a list of the books.  To be fair to you, I'm flagging this so that another reviewer can look at this.  — Maile  (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Not sure myself whether this qualifies as a "list" or not. I may add some more prose as I think some discussion of how this particular bible canonization happened may be of interest to the readers. The "Protestant Bible" is not a scholarly or technical term: it's more often used as a means to distinguish between faiths in the same way that different forms of the Lord's Prayer were used. Junjunone (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify something. Lists have appeared on DYK.  List of lighthouses in Alaska is a good example.  It's just that DYK doesn't count the actual list as prose.  So, the lead itself needs to be 1,500 characters. I hope I'm not confusing you.  But I really do think it would be helpful to you to have another set of reviewer eyes have a look at your nomination.  And good luck with this.— Maile  (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I agree with Maile that the Old and New Testament sections, being a list of biblical books included in the bible, should not count under DYK rules. This article needs an expansion of text about the Protestant bible itself if it is to qualify. As it stands now, it reads like a stub. More information on how it came to be, which churches supported it, and other info beyond its bare contents, is really needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Two weeks with no activity on this. (Nominating editor has edited elsewhere in this time). Moswento talky 16:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)