Difference between revisions of "Talk:Autocephaly"
m |
(Revert) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:: Yes, quite likely. I'm not at all in especially love with "Autocephaly is the status..." {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:22, November 21, 2005 | :: Yes, quite likely. I'm not at all in especially love with "Autocephaly is the status..." {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 20:22, November 21, 2005 | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Revert == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I reverted the recent edit because it seemed mainly non-encylopedic, i.e., it was making an argument (e.g. "must!", etc.) rather than documenting a state of affairs. —[[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> 07:14, February 27, 2007 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 15:14, February 27, 2007
Grammar
Using a noun as the subject of a sentence is perfectly acceptable, especially when that sentence is essentially a statement of definition. In this case, the first sentence answers the question, "What is autocephaly?" —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) (B.A. English, NCSU, '01) 17:53, November 21, 2005 (CST)
- It does seem to want to be in quotation marks, though, for status: "on" is the status of the light switch. Is there a different way to phrase the sentence? —magda (talk) 20:18, November 21, 2005 (CST)
- Yes, quite likely. I'm not at all in especially love with "Autocephaly is the status..." —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:22, November 21, 2005
Revert
I reverted the recent edit because it seemed mainly non-encylopedic, i.e., it was making an argument (e.g. "must!", etc.) rather than documenting a state of affairs. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 07:14, February 27, 2007 (PST)
