807
edits
Changes
m
== Links organization == There seem to be numerous subheaders for a fairly small amount of actual content. Certainly, I think all links will be assumed ::First question was in regards to be Orthodox unless they're designated otherwise. Additionally, a parenthentical note on the jurisdiction of each of the links is probably enough"Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias. 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 " Second question was in regards to see the calendar itselfsubtle nuances. I don't think that the table some kind of contents adds anythingstandard should be established. Also, the links have the jurisdiction listed after in parentheses, so Is it seems redundant going to also have sections. Perhaps these links might be more appropriate for an article on [[feast]]s Greatmartyr or Great-martyr, Myrrh-streaming or [[feast day]]Myrrh-gusher? See what I mean? —--[[User:MagdaJoe Rodgers|magdaJoe Rodgers]] 0823:5253, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Posed a counter question. Took suggestions about style on main article
: 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)
