Talk:Main Page

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(OrthodoWiki logo for Old Calendarists?)
m (Reverted edits by Steliana (Talk); changed back to last version by ASDamick)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
How to (would you) add Bulgarian saints on front page? --[[User:Marzata|Marzata]] 13:51, January 7, 2006 (CST)
+
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #F1F1DE; width: 100%"
:Answered on Marzata's Talk page. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 16:55, January 7, 2006 (CST)
+
  
----
+
|'''This page is for only for discussing the layout and content of the Main Page.''' Please use the [[OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza]] for general site discussion. Use the + tab at the top of this page if you want to add a discussion topic about the Main Page.
May I suggest adding [[Orthodox Media]] and [[Magazines_and_Publications]] somewhere on the main page. Possibly under Other on the list to the right? --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
|}
  
: The list on this page has mainly been used for categories, and both of those links are already connected with [[:Category:Links]].  What do the rest of y'all think?  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
== A suggestion about the saints of the day ==
  
:: Sounds good. Sorry if I seem a little zealous (careless?). I would think that things like this would be of interest to "seekers" and might warrant a prominent placement. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
I know that a majority of the Orthodox in America are on the New Calendar, but since a majority of the Orthodox in the world are on the Old, would it be possible to list the saints of the day according to each calendar... somewhat along the lines of what is done on the main page of [http://orthodoxinfo.com Orthodoxinfo.com]?
  
: I think there's definitely some merit in the idea. My main concern is that I don't want to promise content by having it prominent and then not deliver, so to speak. Many visitors explore a site once and assume what they see there is all there will ever be. Perhaps the cure for this problem is to develop articles about various Orthodox media so that they can be included in categories.  —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12:19, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07 (3-09-07 o.s.) :)
  
:: Perhaps we should start a series, similar to the [[Orthodoxy in America]], that has to do with an [[Introduction to Orthodox_Christianity]] for "seekers" or newcomers. I guess part of my original intent was to address newcomers who come to our home page and are immediately looking for tangible ways to learn more about Orthodoxy. I know that one way I have learned a lot was through online [[Orthodox Media|media]] and [[Magazines and Publications|publications]], although those are external sources from this Wiki. Maybe I should start moving this over to [[OrthodoxWiki:Suggestions|Suggestions]] --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers]] 12:46, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
: There are two possibilities for this that I can think of:
  
: That was actually the idea of the [[Introduction to Orthodox Christianity]] article, that it would serve as an overview with component articles explaining fundamental concepts and practices. I think it would be great to develop a template for it, as well—[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 13:00, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
+
* Edit all 366 calendar day templates to include a separate section for the OC day.  (This will require some rearranging of the main page design to account for the extra text.)
 +
* Figure out some way to code the wiki to display a separate section which automatically figures -13 daysAt the moment, the daily feasts section is possible because the wiki "knows" what day it is today.  (This will also require redesign for the main page.)
  
== TOC ==
+
:Of these two, I don't know how to do the latter, but it would require much less work.
  
ISTM that having no Table of Contents on the Main Page is a good idea. What do you think{{User:ASDamick/sig}} 17:33, 26 October 2005 (CDT)
+
:The difficulty with the former, aside from being a large amount of work, would be that it would make all the many thousands of internal links to dates confused: to which date should they linkBoth?  The calendar local to the saint when he died?  Either way, this would require a level of work I don't even want to begin to imagine.
  
:I put '''<nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>''' in, but when I tried to check it, it looked like I broke the wiki.  I reverted, but that didn't help anything, so I figured it was still in "update" statusIn other words, I agree with you. [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 20:51, 26 October 2005 (CDT)
+
:I'm hoping perhaps [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] knows of some module or something he can plug in or write to teach the wiki how to figure out what day it was 13 days agoIt seems like a relatively simple thing for a computer to figure.  The first solution seems almost insurmountable to me.
  
==Dissapointment==
+
:In any event, since we invented the "Today's feasts" section, I've wished we could display the OC feasts, as well.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 05:13, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
This wiki seems to have a TON of stuff on church history, yet hardly has anything on the foundations of the faith ([[Jesus Christ]], [[Trinity]]). Not only is there very little on the Jesus Christ article, there are no other articles relating to him (resurrection, ascension, life and ministry, etc...).  I fear this site is getting too caught up in history, and I hope you can build solid foundations before you become more broad and general.  Just my two cents. [[User:J23|J23]] 00:11, 31 October 2005 (CST)
+
  
: Part of it is, I think, that our current contributors feel less qualified to work on such articles and so they are being approached with much more caution. Feel free to assist in those areas.  {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 05:48, 31 October 2005 (CST)
+
::For what it’s worth, here’s my thoughts. In the first option, ''Edit all 366 calendar day templates'', each template could just include the template of 13 days earlier. The problem is that on leap years, the first half of March will need to be altered and altered back afterwards.   (The page could just display a link to the other day instead of displaying the text).
  
==Featured Article==
+
::The second option, using math, is better, but  [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Calculation calculations] do not seem to work hereBut if it did, not only could OC dates be calculated, but moving feast days could be calculated too. - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 06:41, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
If I may ask of the featured article to be changed (it has been a little while), I also proffer suggestions: [[Afterfeast]], [[Autocephaly]], [[Basil the Great]].  No vested interest - pretty much anything will do, just to get it cycling again. -- [[User:Pistevo|oea]] 00:06, 3 November 2005 (CST)
+
  
::Agreed! [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
+
:::It looks like there are some [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Date templates] at meta wiki for Julian dates, and it might be useful to look into importing them.  However, due to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day#Alternatives large amount] of information, I'm not sure what we'd need. —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 09:18, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
  
:: Yes, please do so.  I don't really have the time right now to continue to maintain this as I haveI've been hoping that others would join in.  {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 15:03, 3 November 2005 (CST)
+
::: Editing templates to include the template from 13 days earlier wouldn't work, as it would become multi-referential and end up including all 366 days every timeIn addition, in leap years, the alignment is different around Feb. 29&mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:25, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
  
 +
::::I am not enough of a computer nerd to know how workable this would be, but if there was a way to just subtract 13 days from any given date that factored in what year it was, you would have the correct Julian date through the rest of this century, because every year that is a leap year, is a leap year on both calendars.
  
"Strictly speaking, Byzantine Chant is the sacred chant of Christian Churches following the Orthodox rite."
+
::::-Fr. John Whiteford
I am sorry, but I can't accept this at all, as it is a big historical error.
+
We may only say "following actually the Eastern Orthodox rite".
+
Gallican, Syriac and so on existed before the raise of a particular Byzantine sacred chant. 300 years before Constantinople, the Church was already Orthodox.
+
If someone do not agree, this would mean he thinks saint Paul or saint Irenaeus of Lyon were heterodox..
+
-- [[User:Stmaterne|StMaterne]]
+
  
: Interestingly, what we now know as Byzantine chant essentially came out of the Syriac churchThe vast majority of what now makes up the hymnography and music of the Orthodox Church came from the ascetic life in Syria.   
+
::::: The only way that would work is if it were automatically doneI was responding to the suggesting of hard-coding in nested templates; this would only work if years all had exactly the same number of days, since -13 for March 1, for instance, will be different from one year to the nextI think the only way this will work is if we can somehow get the wiki to calculate -13 based on <nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>, which generates the appropriate date.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 18:52, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
  
: Anyway, if you disagree with the article, perhaps you could address your concerns on its talk page?  {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 15:36, March 17, 2006 (CST)
 
  
== Calendar ==
+
::::I could put you in touch with Patrick Barnes.  I'm not sure how he does it, but it works.
  
We can get the Old Calendar saints on the main page also. The free script is at http://www.duke.edu/~aa63/menologion.html
+
::::-Fr. John Whiteford
  
::You're busted for authorial promotion [[User:Aleks|Aleks]]!! Not sure how to integrate the script onto an OrthodoxWiki page -- maybe through an [[OrthodoxWiki:Extensions|extension]]? If you can figure it out, let me know. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
+
::::: I can't imagine that that would be compatible with the wiki software.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:28, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
  
== Please... ==
+
== Scientific Julian Date vs. Julian Calendar ==
  
No pink.  {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 22:28, November 23, 2005 (CST)
+
It is not clear from the templates, but the Julian Date is a scientific way of calculating time that only has a tangential connection with the Julian Calendar... so you would just want to make sure you were getting the right Julian Date.
  
Ok, ok! Maybe beige? Something warm. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
+
-Fr. John Whiteford
  
P.S. I thought you were going to say that. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]]
+
:Hi Fr. John, Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know what you mean - is this issue clarified on the [[Julian Calendar]] page? — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
  
==St. Sava commemoration==
+
:: See [[Wikipedia:Julian day]].  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:29, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
This is Alexi. May I ask you to mention on today's feasts that 27 january in Serbia and Montenegro, and wherevr Serbs live, is St. Sava's Day, one of the most important church holidays for Serbs! [[User:Alexi|Alexi]]
+
  
:Does that work for everyone? {{User:Magda/sig}} 08:53, January 27, 2006 (CST)
+
:::I added this as a link on the [[Julian Calendar]] page. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
  
: Well, our calendar system for fixed feasts is necessarily New Calendar, since I don't think the wiki can automatically support a -13 on its day calculation.  (St. Sava's day is the 14th of January.)  {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 12:56, January 27, 2006 (CST)
+
== A new suggestion about the Saints of the Day ==
  
==Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias==
+
I am not sure how the main page is set up, but for each day you have a template, and a page for the day.  On the page for each day you could easily have it point to the Template for both the old and new calendars.  There are only 13 days each 4 years that this would be a problem for, and that is March 1-13.  You could deal with that by just setting up those days the way that they will be in a non-leap year year, and maybe put a note regarding the one day variance when a leap year occurs.  You could put two templates for the Old calendar on these days, with the second template prefaced by a note that these are the Old Calendar commemorations when it is a leap year.  You could modify the day pages for these dates every leap year, and then change them back afterwards.
  
May I open a discussion on the appropriateness or otherwise of insisting on Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) at all times on OrthodoxWiki (OW)
+
Then the main page could draw from the text of the day page rather than the templates.  What think ye all?  [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 10:13, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
  
To my mind this often takes OW out of step with current attitudes and trends within the Mainstream Orthodox Churches (MOC) themselves.   
+
: This syntax won't work for the main page, because the main page's feasts are based on an automatic variable that "knows" what day it is and includes the proper template accordinglyIf you know how to make the wiki calculate -13 from the date it "knows," then we're in business.
  
One example is OW's rejection of my use of Pre-Chalcedonian to describe those Orthodox Churches which had difficulty accepting the decisions of Chalcedon being enforced on them by Imperial troops. Mainstream Orthodox Churches are using the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to Non-Chalcedonian (the term currently used on OW). Pre-Chalcedonian is a neutral non-offensive term for those who did not agree to the emperor's dictat.  
+
: The main page doesn't include [[April 19]], but rather [[Template:April 19]].  Editing [[April 19]] to include [[Template:April 6]] only adjusts [[April 19]] and would not show up on the main page. If, however, you were to edit [[Template:April 19]] to include [[Template:April 6]] (and do the same for all calendar days), the output would be a recursive, endless loop including the entire calendar and repeating infinitely.
  
For instance, in April 2006 Moscow decided to formally visit the Chalcedonian Christological problem in great depth, and set up a Select Committee to investigate current notions[http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/465/6/]. The Holy Synod of Moscow also uses the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference to the emotive and biased term Non-Chalcedonian.
+
: Having the main page include [[April 19]] (that is, as a new template, not as [[April 19]]), however, would mean having to create a whole series of nested templates, involving changing every single link to a date in the whole wiki (many thousands of links).
  
chrisg 2006-05-29-1440 EAST
+
: [[April 19]] is not a template and cannot be included as one.  So, to keep the date links simple throughout the wiki (i.e., linking simply to the date and not to a template), [[April 19]] would need to include a [[Template:April 19]], which would in turn include nested templates for [[Template:April 19 (new)]] and [[Template:April 19 (old)]].  (It couldn't just include [[Template:April 6]], because that would introduce recursion.)
  
:Hi chrisg - Sure, you can open the discussion! Do you have any other examples of how MCB is out of step with the MOC? I think a discussion on the nuances and history of the two terms, if worded properly, would be an excellent addition to one of the articles dealing with these questions. For my part, I don't see non-Chalcedonian as derogatory at all, or very emotive. My understanding is that this term is used instead of the more polemical "monophysite" or even "so-called monophysite." I haven't been exposed to the term pre-Chalcedonian before. I don't think I'd prefer it, since I don't think it's possible to roll back the clock -- in this way it seems dishonest. On the other hand, I like the idea that the "Oriental Orthodox" churches haven't so much directly rejected Chalecedonian Christology, but were cut off from full participation by Imperial powers. {{User:FrJohn/sig}}
+
: But that then introduces confusion for folks who click on [[April 19]] and see two sets of feasts, one labeled as "Old" and one as "New."  This would be a problem, for instance, in the [[Annunciation]] article. You click on [[March 25]] and see that the "New" feasts include Annunciation, but the "Old" do not. Does that mean that Old Calendarists aren't celebrating the Annunciation on March 25?  In fact, they ''are'' celebrating it on March 25, but by another calendar.  I can think of no way of solving that problem.
  
The recent French articles by mainstream Orthodox I have read in hardback, use the term Pre-Chalcedonian (in French). 
 
  
The hierarchs and priests of the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches in Australia, all object to the term Non-Chalcedonian. [[Eastern Hierarchs]] chose to always use Pre-Chalcedonian because it is not loaded. I don't think the Pre-Chalcedonians are trying to roll back the clock. And the Chalcedonians in Australia who do talk with them, do not see them as trying to do that either.  Their theology is fully Orthodox if measured in pre-Chalcedonian terms.  To call them monophysite is not polemical, it is just plain wrong, since they themselves condemn any denial of the union of two in the one hypostases.
+
: I really think we need to find some sort of extension for the wiki so that it can "know" what day it was 13 days ago. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:45, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
  
Monophysite is a Greek term.  It was wrong in the first place to try to impose a Greek term on Coptic speakers, and Syriac speakers, without fully explaining the nuances of all related terms, and hearing the nuances of the related Coptic and Syriac terms.  
+
:: I agree that your fix would be the ultimate fix, but short of that, is it possible to put templates inside of templates?  If so, you could have a template for Apirl 19 which is formated such that it has two subtemplates: one with the menologion for April 19th, and another that would be preceeded by a lable such as April 6th, O.S. (or something like that) with a template for the April 6th Menologion.
 +
::To make this happen, we would need to rename the calendar templates as we now have them, and then creat new templates for each day that would point to two of those renamed templates for each day.  If you think it would work, I would be happy to do the actual foot work on it, once we had an agreed upon format. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:41, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
  
Until we have a balanced understanding of all sides of the discussion, we cannot have a full understanding of this aspect of Christology. If we go into the discussion insisting our philhellenic viewpoint is right, then we perpetuate the impossibility of full understanding.
+
::: Yes, templates can be nested. I do think that it would work, but it doesn't solve the problem I outlined in my last paragraph above.  When you click on the non-template date article, you see two sets of dates, one "new" and the other "old."  But which one did the link you followed reference? 
  
Saying a decision is correct because it was made by majority vote, is fraught with great danger, especially when it comes to doctrineWith doctrine, decisions should be by consensus of the whole Church.  If consensus cannot be reached, then the time for that definition is not right.  
+
::: I also think the 13 problem days during a leap year would make for some serious design imbalance and ugliness on the Main Page(Of course, having two sets of feasts will likely require some redesigning, anyway.)
  
That was the great tragedy of the councils.  The emperors insisted on doctrinal unity.  Constantine did not really care which way the decision went, he just wanted doctrinal unity, so people would stop fighting about itOf course, the result was worse. Each time a council forced a decision, institutional division resulted.  Islam succeeded against Christianity because the Eastern Roman Empire resorted to force of arms against its own people to force obedience to conciliar decrees on Christian doctrine. Egypt was estranged. Syria was estranged.  Islam succeeded against these Christian provinces, because they were internally weakened by imperial forcing of doctrinal "unity".
+
::: I'm hoping that [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] might be willing to look into the idea of automating this before we do a massive amount of hard-coding for it, because I definitely agree that we should be able to put the OS feasts on the Main Page, too&mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:28, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
  
The sooner we get out of our castles and meet out in the open, the sooner we can put this warlikeness behind us, and get on with the first and the second great commands. Many think Christ's commands are more important than perpetuating divisions arising from imperial motivation.  
+
::: '''Addendum:''' Okay, I've learned that I was wrong about including articles that are in the main namespace (i.e., anything that doesn't have a "Something:" in front of it).  You can include a main namespace article by this syntax:  '''<nowiki>{{:ArticleName}}</nowiki>'''.
  
We must look for and see the other viewpoints, and try to be less offensive, whether knowingly or unknowingly.  
+
::: If we have to do the hard-coding solution, it might end up being possible not to have to nest templates, after all.  We would, however, have to reformat the calendar day articles (e.g., [[April 19]]) with various instances of <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags.  (I could probably make my [[User:ByzBot|bot]] do that.)
  
chrisg 2006-05-29-1621 EAST
+
::: Perhaps, for instance, the OS feasts could be put inside <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> tags.  That way, the only way you'd see them is when the date article is transcluded onto the Main Page.  Then, all the apparatus we'd like to appear when one clicks on the day (e.g., categories, headers, etc.) would be put inside <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags so that it wouldn't appear on the Main Page.  (This solves my "Which kind of date did I click from?" problem, BTW, since you'd only see one set of dates.)  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:50, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
  
:Dear Chris G.,  
+
===Automating it===
:I've read repeatedly the term "Eastern ''non-Filioquist'' Tradition" in many places, and being offended or thinking that the guys who wrote it tried to offend me never even crossed my mind ... should it have? The language barrier is not, in my own dis-honest opinion  :-)  , a valid one -- should we accept the Filioque because the poor-little-Latins didn't have different terms for the temporary-versus-eternal movement of the Holy Ghost, but used the Latin "processio" for the both of them? (Who knows, maybe they weren't ready ... maybe the Church wasn't ready ... maybe God was caught off-guard ...) FOR EXAMPLE, Georgia was cut off, historically and geo-politically, for 1.000 years from the rest of Orthodoxy ... and yet, 1.000 years later, there they were, fully Orthodox ...
+
Well, I just messed around with importing various templates from [[meta:Category:Date computing template]], but I either imported them wrongly or perhaps our wiki doesn't (yet?) have the extensions to do this sort of math. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 20:30, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
:But why am I comparing the Catholics with the Orientals? (One guess could be that there are only 2 Christian Churches that use IV Ezra: Romans and Ethiopians  :-) ... but that's not it, however). The reason is that there seams to be an analogy in the way that they both connect to Eastern-Orthodoxy:
+
: 1) the '''Catholics''' say that their Pneumatology is fully-compatible with that of the Church-Fathers, -- i.e. "from the Father ''through'' the Son" and "from the Father ''and'' the Son" -- (and then add that the whole fuzz was actualy just some HUUUGE ''miss''understanding, ... ''especially'' for political reasons and cultural alienation, etc.) then the Orthodox ask them: "But aren't You then somewhat diminishing the Holy Ghost's personality with regard to the first two Persons in the Trinity?" -- to which the Catholics say: "Nooo! ... offcourse NOT! ... who gave You ''that'' idea?!" ... and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the Epiklesis from the Liturgy, because "the Words of the Institution are all You need, because the ancients allways thaught that the Word of God was the agent of His own Incarnation in the Virgin's whomb, and the word spirit was aplied to Christ in that particular Gospel-verse ('the Holy Spirit shall descend upon You') and it was regarded as aplying to the Holy Ghost only 3 centuries later, by the Constantine-sponsored synod". -- to which the Orthodox reply "Ooooo-kaaayyy ... have it Your way ..."
+
: 2) the '''Orientals''' say "Wel, You see, it's all just some BIIIG ''miss''understanding, because we had the same word for <person> and <nature>" (just like the Romans said "we don't have special words for <ekporeusis>") -- to which the Orhodox reply: "But ''practically'' speaking, You do believe that Christ had a human ''nature'' with which He died on the Cross, and a divine one, which is by its very ''nature'' immortal?" -- to which they reply: "Yeah, man, offcourse ... deep-deep down we're still brothers and all that ... " -- and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the pouring of the water in the wine, which should happen twice during the Liturgy ... and which, by the way, shows Christ's ''true'' death on the Holy and Life-Giving Cross (because the separation of plasma from hardened-blood is a very clear sign of death -- it was when the Gospels were written, ... and it still is now).
+
: 3) IF You think that ''it's just words'', please note that Origen, FOR EXAMPLE, (who was a heretic, I know, but in this example he's fully Orthodox), was speaking with a priest who said "there are two Gods" -- but he didn't went "mad", but instead simply asked the priest (to find out IF he was indeed ill in dogma, OR was just at a loss of words in describing the mistery of our wonderfull God) ... and when he found out he was just using a defectuous expression (i.e., he wasn't denying the Unity of the Godhead), he mildly corrected him and said a few words of advice as to how we should be more carefull with our speech, so as not to be "stambling-stones" and not to leave room for confusion.
+
: THE POINT IS ''if'' it would have been all just a cultural/linguistic problem, ''then'' we probably wouldn't have today Miaphysitism, or Roman-Catholicism.
+
: -- in the end '''I just hope that this is not insulting to anyone''' ... I think the way in which I expounded my ideas clearly shows that -- [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:10, July 6, 2006 (CDT)
+
::Who told you this? In the Coptic (Oriental) Orthodox mass, we do add water to wine. Have you ever attended a Coptic mass before? See, for example, p.17 of http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/liturgy_of_st_basil.pdf (quoting it, "the wine is
+
mixed with water as the mixture of the blood and water poured out of Jesus side when He was on the cross.")
+
  
==Adding links for new saint articles on their commemoration date?==
+
===Something missing===
I was just looking at the saints for today, June 3, and I noticed that Kevin of Glendalough was one of them. I think his article was just added a week or so ago, and there's not a link to this article off the main page saint commemorations for today. Solutions? [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 09:50, June 3, 2006 (CDT)
+
  
:Hi Gabriela, Please do go ahead and add him -- Just click on the date "June 3" to find the right page. Thanks, {{User:FrJohn/sig}}
+
In the Saints starting topic the Greek saints aren't mentioned( they are mentioned thought in the Saints starting page). &mdash;[[User:Harry|<font size="3.5">Harry</font>]]
 +
:The Lithuanian Saints were missing too - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 12:23, March 31, 2008 (PDT)
  
== Fundamentalist Wiki? ==
+
== Christ is Risen on Main Page ==
  
Is this some sort of fundamentalist Christian Wiki? [[User:Sharp Shooter|Abbas bin Quasar Hidayatullah]] 06:54, July 15, 2006 (CDT)
+
Hi, could someone please add the Christ is Risen tag and maybe a picture to this main page!! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:07, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
  
: Nope!  Fundamentalism is a form of Protestantism.  OrthodoxWiki is dedicated to [[Orthodox Christianity]].  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 08:58, July 15, 2006 (CDT)
+
: Done.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 23:37, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
  
== Protection ==
+
Hi, its time to change the "FEATURED ARTICLE" from Paschal Homily to something ...else! - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:01, July 3, 2008 (UTC)
  
I've protected all the templates and the image used permanently on this page to prevent obvious vandalism (such as recently happened).  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 08:21, July 31, 2006 (CDT)
+
== Monophysitism vs Oriental Orthodoxy ==
  
== OrthodoWiki logo for Old Calendarists? ==
+
Hi, I don't understand the difference between Monophysitism and Oriental Orthodoxy and their difference with the East Orthodox Church. What is their main difference? Should we merge the two articles? --[[User:Consta|Consta]] 14:15, December 5, 2008 (UTC)
  
http://www.bishopmaximus.com/links_list.php
+
: Nope. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in Monophysitism, but rather [[Miaphysitism]]. Read the articles for some of the details. (Admittedly, they do need some expansion and further work.)  In the future, please direct comments, questions and suggestions about those articles on the relevant articles themselves.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 15:35, December 5, 2008 (UTC)
  
http://www.bishopmaximus.com/links_body.php?id=11
 
  
I don't think this is a correct use of the logo?
+
== Saint of the day? ==
 +
I listen to Ancient Faith Radio, and they do the saint of the day. Maybe we should link to that page, where additional info can be found. {{unsigned|Iliada}}
  
--[[User:Arbible|Arbible]] 11:30, August 4, 2006 (CDT)
+
: We usually keep external links confined to articles and not on the main page, which is dedicated to internal links to OrthodoxWiki.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 11:31, March 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
+
: That's bizarre.  That's actually the Bulgarian OrthodoxWiki logo, and I think you're right that it's not a correct use.  Perhaps someone who speaks Arabic might be able to contact them.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 11:43, August 4, 2006 (CDT)
+

Latest revision as of 12:18, July 2, 2009

This page is for only for discussing the layout and content of the Main Page. Please use the OrthodoxWiki:Trapeza for general site discussion. Use the + tab at the top of this page if you want to add a discussion topic about the Main Page.

Contents

[edit] A suggestion about the saints of the day

I know that a majority of the Orthodox in America are on the New Calendar, but since a majority of the Orthodox in the world are on the Old, would it be possible to list the saints of the day according to each calendar... somewhat along the lines of what is done on the main page of Orthodoxinfo.com?

-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07 (3-09-07 o.s.) :)

There are two possibilities for this that I can think of:
  • Edit all 366 calendar day templates to include a separate section for the OC day. (This will require some rearranging of the main page design to account for the extra text.)
  • Figure out some way to code the wiki to display a separate section which automatically figures -13 days. At the moment, the daily feasts section is possible because the wiki "knows" what day it is today. (This will also require redesign for the main page.)
Of these two, I don't know how to do the latter, but it would require much less work.
The difficulty with the former, aside from being a large amount of work, would be that it would make all the many thousands of internal links to dates confused: to which date should they link? Both? The calendar local to the saint when he died? Either way, this would require a level of work I don't even want to begin to imagine.
I'm hoping perhaps FrJohn knows of some module or something he can plug in or write to teach the wiki how to figure out what day it was 13 days ago. It seems like a relatively simple thing for a computer to figure. The first solution seems almost insurmountable to me.
In any event, since we invented the "Today's feasts" section, I've wished we could display the OC feasts, as well. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 05:13, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
For what it’s worth, here’s my thoughts. In the first option, Edit all 366 calendar day templates, each template could just include the template of 13 days earlier. The problem is that on leap years, the first half of March will need to be altered and altered back afterwards. (The page could just display a link to the other day instead of displaying the text).
The second option, using math, is better, but calculations do not seem to work here. But if it did, not only could OC dates be calculated, but moving feast days could be calculated too. - Andrew 06:41, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
It looks like there are some templates at meta wiki for Julian dates, and it might be useful to look into importing them. However, due to the large amount of information, I'm not sure what we'd need. —magda (talk) 09:18, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
Editing templates to include the template from 13 days earlier wouldn't work, as it would become multi-referential and end up including all 366 days every time. In addition, in leap years, the alignment is different around Feb. 29. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:25, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
I am not enough of a computer nerd to know how workable this would be, but if there was a way to just subtract 13 days from any given date that factored in what year it was, you would have the correct Julian date through the rest of this century, because every year that is a leap year, is a leap year on both calendars.
-Fr. John Whiteford
The only way that would work is if it were automatically done. I was responding to the suggesting of hard-coding in nested templates; this would only work if years all had exactly the same number of days, since -13 for March 1, for instance, will be different from one year to the next. I think the only way this will work is if we can somehow get the wiki to calculate -13 based on {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, which generates the appropriate date. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 18:52, March 22, 2007 (PDT)


I could put you in touch with Patrick Barnes. I'm not sure how he does it, but it works.
-Fr. John Whiteford
I can't imagine that that would be compatible with the wiki software. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 17:28, March 22, 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Scientific Julian Date vs. Julian Calendar

It is not clear from the templates, but the Julian Date is a scientific way of calculating time that only has a tangential connection with the Julian Calendar... so you would just want to make sure you were getting the right Julian Date.

-Fr. John Whiteford

Hi Fr. John, Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know what you mean - is this issue clarified on the Julian Calendar page? — FrJohn (talk)
See Wikipedia:Julian day. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 17:29, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
I added this as a link on the Julian Calendar page. — FrJohn (talk)

[edit] A new suggestion about the Saints of the Day

I am not sure how the main page is set up, but for each day you have a template, and a page for the day. On the page for each day you could easily have it point to the Template for both the old and new calendars. There are only 13 days each 4 years that this would be a problem for, and that is March 1-13. You could deal with that by just setting up those days the way that they will be in a non-leap year year, and maybe put a note regarding the one day variance when a leap year occurs. You could put two templates for the Old calendar on these days, with the second template prefaced by a note that these are the Old Calendar commemorations when it is a leap year. You could modify the day pages for these dates every leap year, and then change them back afterwards.

Then the main page could draw from the text of the day page rather than the templates. What think ye all? Frjohnwhiteford 10:13, April 19, 2007 (PDT)

This syntax won't work for the main page, because the main page's feasts are based on an automatic variable that "knows" what day it is and includes the proper template accordingly. If you know how to make the wiki calculate -13 from the date it "knows," then we're in business.
The main page doesn't include April 19, but rather Template:April 19. Editing April 19 to include Template:April 6 only adjusts April 19 and would not show up on the main page. If, however, you were to edit Template:April 19 to include Template:April 6 (and do the same for all calendar days), the output would be a recursive, endless loop including the entire calendar and repeating infinitely.
Having the main page include April 19 (that is, as a new template, not as April 19), however, would mean having to create a whole series of nested templates, involving changing every single link to a date in the whole wiki (many thousands of links).
April 19 is not a template and cannot be included as one. So, to keep the date links simple throughout the wiki (i.e., linking simply to the date and not to a template), April 19 would need to include a Template:April 19, which would in turn include nested templates for Template:April 19 (new) and Template:April 19 (old). (It couldn't just include Template:April 6, because that would introduce recursion.)
But that then introduces confusion for folks who click on April 19 and see two sets of feasts, one labeled as "Old" and one as "New." This would be a problem, for instance, in the Annunciation article. You click on March 25 and see that the "New" feasts include Annunciation, but the "Old" do not. Does that mean that Old Calendarists aren't celebrating the Annunciation on March 25? In fact, they are celebrating it on March 25, but by another calendar. I can think of no way of solving that problem.


I really think we need to find some sort of extension for the wiki so that it can "know" what day it was 13 days ago. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 13:45, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
I agree that your fix would be the ultimate fix, but short of that, is it possible to put templates inside of templates? If so, you could have a template for Apirl 19 which is formated such that it has two subtemplates: one with the menologion for April 19th, and another that would be preceeded by a lable such as April 6th, O.S. (or something like that) with a template for the April 6th Menologion.
To make this happen, we would need to rename the calendar templates as we now have them, and then creat new templates for each day that would point to two of those renamed templates for each day. If you think it would work, I would be happy to do the actual foot work on it, once we had an agreed upon format. Frjohnwhiteford 18:41, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
Yes, templates can be nested. I do think that it would work, but it doesn't solve the problem I outlined in my last paragraph above. When you click on the non-template date article, you see two sets of dates, one "new" and the other "old." But which one did the link you followed reference?
I also think the 13 problem days during a leap year would make for some serious design imbalance and ugliness on the Main Page. (Of course, having two sets of feasts will likely require some redesigning, anyway.)
I'm hoping that FrJohn might be willing to look into the idea of automating this before we do a massive amount of hard-coding for it, because I definitely agree that we should be able to put the OS feasts on the Main Page, too. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:28, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
Addendum: Okay, I've learned that I was wrong about including articles that are in the main namespace (i.e., anything that doesn't have a "Something:" in front of it). You can include a main namespace article by this syntax: {{:ArticleName}}.
If we have to do the hard-coding solution, it might end up being possible not to have to nest templates, after all. We would, however, have to reformat the calendar day articles (e.g., April 19) with various instances of <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags. (I could probably make my bot do that.)
Perhaps, for instance, the OS feasts could be put inside <includeonly> tags. That way, the only way you'd see them is when the date article is transcluded onto the Main Page. Then, all the apparatus we'd like to appear when one clicks on the day (e.g., categories, headers, etc.) would be put inside <noinclude> tags so that it wouldn't appear on the Main Page. (This solves my "Which kind of date did I click from?" problem, BTW, since you'd only see one set of dates.) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:50, April 19, 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Automating it

Well, I just messed around with importing various templates from meta:Category:Date computing template, but I either imported them wrongly or perhaps our wiki doesn't (yet?) have the extensions to do this sort of math. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 20:30, April 19, 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Something missing

In the Saints starting topic the Greek saints aren't mentioned( they are mentioned thought in the Saints starting page). —Harry

The Lithuanian Saints were missing too - Andrew 12:23, March 31, 2008 (PDT)

[edit] Christ is Risen on Main Page

Hi, could someone please add the Christ is Risen tag and maybe a picture to this main page!! Vasiliki 23:07, April 28, 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 23:37, April 28, 2008 (UTC)

Hi, its time to change the "FEATURED ARTICLE" from Paschal Homily to something ...else! - Vasiliki 01:01, July 3, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monophysitism vs Oriental Orthodoxy

Hi, I don't understand the difference between Monophysitism and Oriental Orthodoxy and their difference with the East Orthodox Church. What is their main difference? Should we merge the two articles? --Consta 14:15, December 5, 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in Monophysitism, but rather Miaphysitism. Read the articles for some of the details. (Admittedly, they do need some expansion and further work.) In the future, please direct comments, questions and suggestions about those articles on the relevant articles themselves. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 15:35, December 5, 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Saint of the day?

I listen to Ancient Faith Radio, and they do the saint of the day. Maybe we should link to that page, where additional info can be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iliada (talkcontribs) .

We usually keep external links confined to articles and not on the main page, which is dedicated to internal links to OrthodoxWiki. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 11:31, March 17, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox