Talk:Shadrach

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled[edit]

On May 21, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shadrach. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 06:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)happy birthdAAY STANDS FOR OKAY

Shortened Form[edit]

If you search RootsWeb or any of the genealogical websites they all list examples of both "Shad" and "Shade" as being common shortened forms of Shadrach. It can also be spelled Shadrack. Emurray 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length / relevance of article's "Biblical" section[edit]

The "Biblical" section in this article seems extremely long and mostly irrelevant for a disambiguation page. The majority of the content seems more suitable for a full article on "Shadrach" (the Biblical figure) but is out of place on a disambiguation page. For now, I have moved the shorter "People" and "Media" sections to the top of the article so that wiki users do not need to scan through the lengthy Biblical section before reaching these alternative "Shadrach" wiki article links (which is the main purpose of a disambiguation page I presume). Pugetbill 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've pared down this page quite considerably. I've removed the 'Bibilcal' section - the biblical figure is already addressed under 'People' - and I've removed all redlink entries and those entries which didn't seem to be associated with any specific article. This is a disambiguation page - it is meant to disambiguate between similar articles. It is not the place for substantive content, nor is it a general listing page for concepts which don't have Wikipedia articles.

Xdamr^talk 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]