Talk:Church Calendar

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Posed a counter question. Took suggestions about style on main article)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
: My response to your first question would be yes.  As for your second, I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't see why we should give precedence to any one jurisdiction over another.  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 08:06, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 
: My response to your first question would be yes.  As for your second, I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't see why we should give precedence to any one jurisdiction over another.  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 08:06, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
  
== Links organization ==
+
::First question was in regards to the "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias." Second question was in regards to subtle nuances. I think some kind of standard should be established. Is it going to Greatmartyr or Great-martyr, Myrrh-streaming or Myrrh-gusher? See what I mean? --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 23:53, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 
+
There seem to be numerous subheaders for a fairly small amount of actual content.  Certainly, I think all links will be assumed to be Orthodox unless they're designated otherwise.  Additionally, a parenthentical note on the jurisdiction of each of the links is probably enough. 
+
 
+
The main downsides of the numerous subheaders is that they extend the table of contents more than is probably deserved for such a relatively small amount of information and that it extends the article with lots more space but little content.
+
 
+
What do you think?  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 08:13, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I liked being able to see the calendar itself. I don't think that the table of contents adds anything. Also, the links have the jurisdiction listed after in parentheses, so it seems redundant to also have sections.  Perhaps these links might be more appropriate for an article on [[feast]]s or [[feast day]]? [[User:Magda|magda]] 08:52, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+

Revision as of 19:53, June 27, 2005

Old or New

You should probably make some reference as to whether this is the Old or New calendar 208.57.98.20 11:00, 23 Dec 2004 (CST)

As it stands at this point, it is neither Old or New Calendar. The dates for the fixed feasts are the same, though of course the civil calendar dates will vary. Rdr. Andrew

Collecting information

It would probably be good to set some guidelines about how to list the Saints and which titles to use, etc. I have many questions, but these are the ones I have now.

  • Should all the saints listed for a given day be given from all the Orthodox collections (e.g. OCA, GOARCH, AOCA)?
  • Should the OCA's way of listing take precedence?
My response to your first question would be yes. As for your second, I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't see why we should give precedence to any one jurisdiction over another. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 08:06, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
First question was in regards to the "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias." Second question was in regards to subtle nuances. I think some kind of standard should be established. Is it going to Greatmartyr or Great-martyr, Myrrh-streaming or Myrrh-gusher? See what I mean? --Joe Rodgers 23:53, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox