Talk:Books of the Bible/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Reorganization
I have reorganized the list as to who's list is older. That is: Tanakh, a table listing a difference between the Prod/Cath OTs, the apocrypha, and the NT. -- iHoshie 08:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The current list appears to have dropped the deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint not kept by the Roman Catholics but retained by the Orthodox that were listed as groups B., C., and D. above. I noticed when I tried to find 3rd and 4th Maccabees. Did they just get missed in the reorganization? Wesley 05:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I just added an Orthodox column to the end, because that was easiest. It still has a couple of omissions, and one or two more footnotes wouldn't hurt. The Orthodox Bible has a Psalm 151, and a few more verses at the end of Job telling who he is and how he's related to Abraham, for instance. Wesley \
- To keep the columns ordered by age, I believe the Protestant column would come last; not sure how the Catholic and Orthodox columns would be sequenced, probably matters far less in that case. Wesley 16:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Location Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel
Why aren't the three books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel in the Tanakh at the same level with the corresponding three books in the Christian Bibles in the table? Thanks. (Bronto)
Same question. Also, if the intention is to list the books in the order used in the holy book in question, shouldn't that be mentioned in the description? Aliter 16:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto re: alignment. Portress 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Odes or Odes of Solomon
I think we have some confusion here. A recent edit insinuates that the Odes of Solomon were in the Orthodox canon of Scripture. However, older edits mention a Book of Odes which includes the Prayer of Manasseh and others. I reverted to the previous version in the hopes someone will be able to bring some clear info to light. Yahnatan 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Using just "Odes" doesn't even lead to you a bible book at all. Either Odes of Solomon or Book of Odes is what is needed. Harvestdancer 20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor Alterations
The new format makes sense, but I don't think that we should refer to the Old Testament in the Christian canons as Tanakh because it's strictly Jewish term, and should only be used for the Hebrew canon. And also, earlier, I've altered the names to most books in the Catholic canon to correspond to the Douay-Rheims and other Catholic Bibles (eg. Knox), which include Latinised names (particularly in the prophets), and other variants. --Revolution 9 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Some Bibles order the OT according to the Tanakh. I have a modern Hebrew Bible (OT + NT) and an Albanian Catholic Bible done that way, so it is valid to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.229.202 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you alter it to match the Douay-Rheims-Challoner names? Nearly no English-speaking Catholic knows them by those names - that's not how they're found in the Lectionary, for example. Cheyinka 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Books in Catholic Bible
Hello, I just discovered this page and noted with some amusement how Catholic Bibles are described (or not described) in the table. The Douay-Rheims Bible is shown in the table, but more recent translations use spellings that are similar to Protestant Bibles (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, etc.). It might take a new table to explain it all, but I don't know how to do that and I don't know if it would be appropriate. LovesMacs (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am unclear why the opening section includes Eastern Catholic churches as having a separate canon from the Catholic Church. "The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books." Eastern Catholic churchs are in union with the Holy See at the Vatican, hence they are unified with the Catholic Church on matters of faith (the Bible) and morals. They may believe there are edifying, non-canonical/historic books, yet are not considered part of the bible just as Western (Latin Rite) Catholics do. Micael (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Book Order
It would be better to split the New Testament orders under "Catholic, E. Orthodox, Protestant, and most O. Orthodox". There are different orders in teh Slavonic, Armenian and Ethiopian traditions. Someone has merged these together and gives teh false impression that they all use the same book order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.183.89 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I support such a change User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 23:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs)
Title
Should Revelation be labeled as The Prophecy or just Prophecy, or some other name such as Apocalyptic Literature or Prophetic Literature...surely some terms similar to the latter ones have wide currency in academic Biblical scholarship. --Dpr 03:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've heard it most commonaly called "apocalyptic literature" (like the book of Daniel).
It is called "Revelation" or "The Apocalypse of John" (aka "The Apocalypse of St. John"). People commonly (but incorrectly) refer to it as "RevelationS" (plural). "Apocalypse" means Revelation (translated from the Greek) so this is the most often used named in scholarly circles. I've never heard it referred to as "The Prophecy" by anyone in academia, or anywhere outside this discussion page, actually... [Paraforce]
Revelation
I think it would be wise to change “The Prophecy” for “Apocalypse”. Where it says “Revelation11 or Apocalypse” we should change it for “Revelation11 of John”, since we have many people with their “own” version of the book of “revelations”. Also “Apocalypse” is not the name of the book but it is a stile of writing just as an epistle or biography. Licio 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Proposed changes to table
I'm proposing the following changes to the table:
- Mark with an asterisk those books which are present, but in a different order (e.g. Ruth in the Tanakh column), and adding the name if it is different (e.g. Chronicles).
- Move the "Nevi'im or Prophets" and "Ketuvim or Writings" headings under the Tanakh column.
- Add column and row boundaries for "asterisked" cells (e.g. Isaiah)
- Make column boundaries continuous, (e.g. add boundaries between the Protestant and Catholic columns at 3 and 4 Maccabees), except at subsection headings (e.g. "Historical books)
- Eliminate row boundaries between missing books (e.g. eliminate boundaries between 2 and 3 Maccabees, in the Protestant column)
These changes would produce the following table. Comments? If no one objects, I will make these changes.
Paul August ☎ 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, apparently someone has gone ahead and made this changes already. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
New table
(*) These books are present in a different order.
Esther and Song of Songs not in the Bible?
I found a seemingly odd, unsourced claim in the Deuterocanonical books article. Who considers Esther and Song of Songs to be Deuterocanonical? RK 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction between Deuterocanonical books and Books of the Bible articles
In the Deuterocanonical books article, it is implied that Protestants do not have any of the deuterocanonical books in their canon at all, except for these three:
Yet the Books of the Bible article does not list these three books. (Nor does it list any of the other deuterocanonical books. Which article is correct? And is it really true that all Protestant groups reject all of the other Deuterocanonical books? And do any Catholic Bibles include these three texts as valid deuterocanonicals? RK 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- my family is lutheran (i'm an atheist though) and indeed protestant bibles exclude the deuterocanonical books (judith, tobias, wisdom, baruch, ben sira, maccabees 1 and 2 and . most protestants anyway - I know mormons have additional books of their own. Catholics regard 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh as apocryphal though. --Philo 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC);
Table explanation
I propose removing reference what missing books are called. The sentence is not NPOV. In fact, it is dual-POV. There is not set list for what is apocrypha, so using a potentianally prejoritive term like that out of context takes away from the article's neutrality on the topic. (Proper context for apocrypha being an article about Apocrypha). Since the topic is covered elsewhere in the article, and in its own article, it's a bit overstated when included in the table's description. Fcsuper 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Two suggestions
- Merging the table cells for identically called books would make it easier to verify this fact in the blink of an eye.
- The column for the Slavonic New Testament is out of sync with the other columns thereby obscuring the fact that it largely corresponds the the other columns. Please fix this like in the table for the Old Testament.
what books are about...
Instead of concerning wholly on which denominations & sects accept which books in which order, could we possibly have a section what each book concerns. If someone wants to make a table (which I can't do) including the name of the book, author, subject of the book, possible year, and language written in and/or addressed to who it may concern - except better worded...
Sorry, I'm not logged in. User:Working for Him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.26.26 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the time to divide
I have taken the time to divide the Apocryphal/Deutrocanonial into four categories that was devised by the NRSV translatiors. They are:
A. Books in the RC, Gk and Slavic Bibles:
- Tob
- Jdt
- AddEsth
- Wis
- Sir
- Bar
- LetJer
- Azar
- Sus
- Bel
- 1Ma
- 2Ma
B. Books in the Gk and Slavic Bibles, but NOT in the RC Bible:
- 1Es
- 3Ma
- PraMan
- Psa151
C. Books in the Slavic Bible and the Latin Vulgate Appendix:
- 2Es
D. Books in the Gk Bible Appendix:
- 4Ma
This list of catagories makes crystal clear which books are in which churches bibles. The previous list was a bit too ambigious to me.
The problem with the above list is that it only deals with the Protestant, Catholic, Greek and Russian Orthodox traditions. It does not deal with other Church traditions (e.g. Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.49.144 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Islamic & Qur'anic
Does it really need to be listed twice? If anybody agrees, just remove one. I'd suggest Qur'anic is the one you remove, and keep Islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
david
how many sisters did david have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.172.61 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
For info
Swedish protestants use a "Protestant Old Testament" with an addendum containing the books making the full set equal to the Slavonic Old Testament. I think there's no reason to add this to the tables however. It's just an indication that the facts are changing. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Luthern New Testament
The order for the books of the Lutheran New Testament is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilternGiant (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed the chart and note a bit to better indicate that this is the typical Protestant order for the books of the New Testament, rather than the "Lutheran" order for the books. It has a link to the article on the Luther Bible. Carlaude:Talk 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The Lutheran order is still wrong. The first column is the Protestant and Catholic order. No point having the second column as an identical Protestant column when it is there to indicate alternative book orders and the Lutheran order is different. The link to the article on the Lutheran Bible is helpful, but that does not state the Lutheran order either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilternGiant (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Most Lutheran New Testaments follow the standard Protestant order. It is the historic traslation by Luther-- aka the Lutheran Bible that has a changed order. The current state seem like one suitable compromise in showing these facts. Carlaude:Talk 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is the Luther Bible which has a different New Testament book order, and this is relevant to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.0.68 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Joe-blow's change actually decreases the readers understanding of the book order of the New Testament.
- The Luthern New Testament is not the same as the Luther Bible New Testament, and the order in the Luthern New Testament is not the same as the order in the Luther Bible New Testament. As it says in that L1 note, only traditional German Luther Bibles are still printed with the New Testament in the changed order. All other Lutherns use the more common book order.şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Which Version of the Christian Old Testament Is the Same as the Tanakh?
So, of the 3 different versions of the Old Testament, the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestant, which one is the same or the closest to the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh? In terms of content, not just the list of books. --Roland 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Protestant is the same content, but not the same order, or way of dividing books. All Christians divide a few books that are separated in the Tanakh. Maybe we should say in the intro that the Protestant is the same content? Carlaude:Talk 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- You could say that "the Protestant is the same content" but it wouldn't be exactly correct. For Judaism, their Bible is the Masoretic Text. Protestant translations typically place some reliance on the Septuagint, such as Isaiah 7:14. 75.15.200.75 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Protestants use almost entirly the same text for the OT, and it is rarely any different than the Masoretic Text. And even then it would generally be only if the multiple other traditions (Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls) differ from the Masoretic Text but agree with each other. Even when it is different, it would only be a word or a few words, and not even a whole verse.
- All the same-- these are questions of manuscript-- and not questions of canon. The subject of the whole page is the Biblical canon. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
.
39 articles and the Canon
As some articles on Wikipedia say, the 39 articles of the Church of England do admit the apocryphal books for "example of life and instruction of manners", but not for doctrine. Which books do they so admit? Not just all the deuterocanonical books recognized by the Roman Catholics, but also: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.
I point this out because discussion of the Protestant Bible ignores the fact that these books are part of the Anglican tradition - they were included in the Lectionary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. There have been new lectionaries since, in 1871, 1922 and others since then - but these books were read in church in the Anglican tradition - and they included the 3 books from the Vulgate that were dropped by the RCs at Trent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.14.249 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Issues
Shouldn't this be re-directed to the entry on Biblical_canon, or vice-versa? Over the last year there has been an explosion of new entries all on the same subject! RK
- I agree with the above sentiment. The Biblical canon article seems to be the more compelling, and it also seems a bit empty without an actual list of Canons. I'm going to wait on doing anything about it though. If anyone has any compelling reason why this material should not be moved to Biblical_canon please say so. If there Are no objections within 24hours, I will move the list to the Biblical canon page, and redirect this page to that. Also adding Qoholeth as an alternate name to Ecclesiastes as that is used in the NJB translation. User:J.F.Quackenbush
- I think this article is just fine where it is. It is a very basic listing of the Books of the Bible with links to the books themselves, and should satisfy the needs of the many who don't want to get into any issues about canonicity. It should include the "Apocrypha" from the Catholic version of the Bible, but shouldn't need to go much beyond that. There are many places in Wikipedia where list and text pages are terds. Eclecticology 16:58 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
- Agree with Eclecticology: better to leave the Table as a stand-alone to which other articles can refer (including the one on Biblical_canon.Dampinograaf (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A question however: is it opportune to include a list of Mormon sacred writings, which are note usually considered part of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures; not even by Mormons. See Mormon: "Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is another scriptural witness of Jesus Christ that is comparable to the Bible".Dampinograaf (talk)
- Leave as is, per Eclecticology. Merging two lengthy and dissimilar articles, one text and the other tabular, is less useful than separating them. --lmgold 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb224466 (talk • contribs)
- Leave as is. They are two different and very distinct articles with very diffrent content. --Carlaude (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Leave as is. I am a working Biblical commentator and having this information summarized as it is on this page is hugely useful. This page is also much more approachable for someone who does not know much about different Bibles.
- I agree it is confusing to have the same subject matter in more than one article, but the only alternatives are 1) having an article that can only be read by someone already very knowledgeable in the area, or 2) the horrendously labor-intensive job of combining the pages and including a long summary at the beginning that is readable by someone not intimately familiar with the subject.
Apollo (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This page has major issues when speaking about the Orthodox faith. If I had time I would do some major cleaning up... Grailknighthero (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Apocrypha order
If someone could write one of those nice, colored cell-by-cell templates like there are for the OT and NT books for the Apocrypha, listing "Protestant Apocrypha", "Catholic Deuterocanon", "Greek Orthodox Anagignoskomena", "Slavic Orthodox Anagignoskomena", "Syrian Orthodox Peshitta-Canon", "Ethiopian Orthodox Narrow Canon (Haile Selassie Enumeration)", and "Ethiopian Orthodox Broader Canon (Common Enumerations)", it would be much appreciated. Only the Deuterocanon/Pseudepigrapha section doesn't have an ordered cell-table now. JohnChrysostom (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Protestant Bible doesn't include the Apocrypha at all, so there is no order to be given in that situation. However, I could set up something like you describe as long as I had an ordered list to work from. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm trying to work it out on my own (how to write tables), but I believe there is an essential order for Protestant Apocrypha even if they're not canonical: they appear in this order in every Protestant Bible w/ Apocrypha; that is, starting with 3 Esdras and ending with 4 Maccabees. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 12:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- In which Protestant Bibles did you find the Apocrypha? I usually have to hunt for a version that includes them. Wouldn't that make omission the "standard order"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Many more liberal Protestant Bibles, all ecumenical Bibles, and all scholarly Bibles tend to include them, such as the RSV, the NRSV, the NEB, the REB, the New Interpreter's Study, the Harper-Collins, the New Oxford Annotated, etc. (as well as older Bibles, such as the KJV, New Cambridge Paragraph, etc.); more conservative Bibles such as the NKJV and NASB, heavily used by Fundamentalists and/or Evangelicals, tend not to. The ESV is a rare exception, in that Oxford has released an addition with the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha, while it is becoming the "Evangelical Standard Version" (I used the ESV heavily myself, as a Catholic). I recommend, if you wish to study the Apocrypha, for scholarly study, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd Expanded Edition (1977). It comes with all of the normal drawbacks of the RSV translation. One can also buy the NRSV NOAB Apocrypha (annotated) and KJV apocrypha separately, if you don't want them between the covers of your Bible. Of course, all Catholic and Orthodox Bibles (NAB, DRC, OSB, NABRE, CCD, JB, NJB) and Septuagint translations (Brenton, NETS) include them. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Books of the Bible/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I shall review this article for you. I'll leave my comments, feedback and final assessment shortly. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is generally alright. It would need improvement it you were to take it to FA, but there's no problem as far as the GA criteria are concerned. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is the main problem here. The lead should summarise the whole article - it should contain a brief account of everything that will be mentioned in the article. There should be no major topic in the article which is not mentioned in the lead. A good guideline for lead sections is to write a summary paragraph for every top level section of the article. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The sources all seem to be ok, and any controviersial statements are referenced. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yep. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No problem here. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I am not convinced that this is broad enough. The content on the books of the Bible is good, but there's nothing beyond that. What disputes have there been over the books of the Bible? Why have different denominates accepted different canons? How have other religions/groups viewed the books of the Bible (perhaps Islamic views, or atheist views)? Look for the impact that the subject has had on different cultures, societies and religions. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not a problem. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutrality is good. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No evidence of edit warring. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | This is fine. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There is one image, but the images used could be improved. The current image (of the development of the Old Testament) is slightly confusing and could do with clarification. Also, I am sure that Wikipedia has relevant images - old manuscripts, or images of certain books. There is this image of Proverbs, for example. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | This article does not pass our Good Article criteria at this time. The main issues are with the lead and the breadth of coverage; once you address those, the article should success a GA nomination. |
- I'm not formally reviewing this, but I wonder whether it might be better to work the article towards featured list status instead. Just a thought. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a possibility, but it would drastically change the nature of the article. I think that, because of the controversy around which books form the Biblical canon, it would be difficult to have a list which includes all the books, remains neutral, and manages to discuss all of the issues involved - once you achieve that, you're on the way to a good/featured article again. Also, there is probably a lot of history, reception, etc which needs to be covered here that could not be in a featured list. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I just wonder what would differentiate this article from Biblical canon if further developed. They treat roughly the same subject in fairly similar ways. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true - I'd forgotten about that article. In which case, a list format might be better. We'd probably need to establish the consensus first, but I can see the merits of the idea. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I just wonder what would differentiate this article from Biblical canon if further developed. They treat roughly the same subject in fairly similar ways. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a possibility, but it would drastically change the nature of the article. I think that, because of the controversy around which books form the Biblical canon, it would be difficult to have a list which includes all the books, remains neutral, and manages to discuss all of the issues involved - once you achieve that, you're on the way to a good/featured article again. Also, there is probably a lot of history, reception, etc which needs to be covered here that could not be in a featured list. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly the Biblical canon article should be the one to discuss issues over which books have been included (or excluded) and why. However, there is still a lot that ought to be covered here. There are traditional groupings of books that are not explained, such as which books are "prophecy" and what this means (and how this differs between the Hebrew Tanakh and Christian Old Testament), which are "history", and so on. There also ought to be a summary about the time, place, and language in which most of the books were composed and then written down. There is a lot that could be included here without duplicating content of the article on canonicity. Most of all, there need to be many more scholarly references, which should be plentiful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Removing an article links from top importance status
This article is of top importance as determined by a work group formed to determied all top importance Christianity articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. If you would like to remove (or add) a Christianity article from the status of importance=top, please start a discussion on that talk page first. (The list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles and as of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list.) şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)