Difference between revisions of "Talk:ROCOR and OCA"
(→Article Size) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Article Size== | ==Article Size== | ||
As this is a large article, would it be better to split this article up (similar to what was done to [[Western Rite]])? Perhaps into 'ROCOR and Metropolia' and 'ROCOR and OCA' sections? --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 03:02, April 25, 2006 (CDT) | As this is a large article, would it be better to split this article up (similar to what was done to [[Western Rite]])? Perhaps into 'ROCOR and Metropolia' and 'ROCOR and OCA' sections? --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 03:02, April 25, 2006 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : It is somewhat long, though I don't think it is as yet ''too'' long. I'm also concerned that a split would end up disturbing the narrative coherence too much. With the WR article, it was more obviously possible, since the period was longer, including a number of smaller stories, and including whole sections of analysis. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 06:41, April 25, 2006 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:41, April 25, 2006
Ascension Monastery
Isn't the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension (Resaca, GA) under the Jerusalem Patriarch? --Joe Rodgers 23:46, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, currently, but in '97 it came under ROCOR from the OCA. I believe they came under Jerusalem just recently. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 08:32, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- OK, I figured you knew that. Would it be appropriate to acknowledge that in some way? --Joe Rodgers 11:02, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Perhaps if there were a separate article about that monastery, that would be the place to do it. The reason I'm hesitant to include such information in this article is that the ROCOR/OCA relationship is complicated enough as it is without branching off too much into other histories. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Article Size
As this is a large article, would it be better to split this article up (similar to what was done to Western Rite)? Perhaps into 'ROCOR and Metropolia' and 'ROCOR and OCA' sections? --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:02, April 25, 2006 (CDT)
- It is somewhat long, though I don't think it is as yet too long. I'm also concerned that a split would end up disturbing the narrative coherence too much. With the WR article, it was more obviously possible, since the period was longer, including a number of smaller stories, and including whole sections of analysis. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:41, April 25, 2006 (CDT)
