Talk:1 Chronicles

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

1 Chronicles

Uncited. Encyclopedic. Or does this get included under the abbreviation non-standard? There are pleanty more where this came from. Can anyone recall whether any have met a previous RfD challenge? DCDuring TALK 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you distinguishing this from (say) Genesis on the basis that it has multiple parts? Because if so . . . it meets WT:COALMINE, in that 1Chronicles is decently attested. (I did not support WT:COALMINE when it was voted on, and I still don't agree with it, but it's somewhat convenient when it forestalls the need to think coherently. Higher brain functions are hard work, y'know.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, name of a book. Albeit an unbelievably well known one. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even bothering to look at the CFI, there are ridiculous numbers of books and writings out there which say things along the line of "Genesis says..." or "1 Chronicles says..."; phrases which assume understanding of the term. If there are tens of thousands of books which assume understanding of a particular term I think it is safe to say that whatever our rules are we should probably allow that term. - [The]DaveRoss 03:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there contexts in which I could safely use this or where I could not safely use this, assuming I want to be understood. Is it an abbreviation of something like the "first book of Chronicles" ? DCDuring TALK 11:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an abbreviation, no; the abbreviation is 1 Chr, with 1 Chronicles being a normal prose phrase (also written I Chronicles; either way, it's pronounced like "one chronicles"). That said, unless I'm citing a specific verse, I'm more likely to speak of Chronicles than of 1 Chronicles. BTW, the coordinated phrase "1 and 2 Chronicles" also exists, though I'm not sure if that's an argument one way or the other. (It makes it seem like a less rigid proper name, but on the other hand, "North and South Carolina" also exists.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

nitpick: It's not "one chronicles", it's "first chronicles". Same for all the other 1 and 2 books. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, that is what I meant to write. Clearly I should be in bed. Thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep. DAVilla 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 09:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)