Difference between revisions of "Talk:Filioque"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Response)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
:::Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 
:::Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|{{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}}]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Perhaps the ''Misspellings'' section could be removed, and the sentence "''Filioque'' may be misspelled as ''filoque''." added to the very end of the first paragraph? Especially in an article of this magnitude, giving a such a brief section to misspellings seems out of balance. —[[User:Magda|magda]] 19:31, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:31, July 5, 2005

I originally imported this from Wikipedia, but it seems to me that this article needs a major reworking, if not replacement. Its rhetoric is pretty convoluted and unclear. --Rdr. Andrew 19:50, 1 Feb 2005 (CST)

Update: It has, indeed, been significantly reworked! —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)


Misspelling?

Do you think it's really necessary to include a misspelled version? It seems that could set a somewhat awkward precedent. I don't see that sort of thing in any encyclopedia with which I'm familiar. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Rdr. Andrew, Please feel free to change anything I do. Let me say...I don't know you in the flesh, but have come to appreciate you and your leadership. Maybe the way to approach this is to insert it somewhere in the text or redirect a filoque page to filioque. I just know that this is a very common misspelling (I've done it!). Whatever the community sees fit to do. Maybe we should start something in the style manual about how to address misspellings. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe ( talk » inspect » chat )]] 13:05, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I don't think we should put in redirects for misspellings - I don't think it makes the site that much more usable, and such redirects could too easily multiply. Besides, why not just let people learn to spell the words in question correctly? Fr. John
Yes, I thought that the redirect issue could get out of hand. This is why I thought to include the misspelling on the page. --[[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe ( talk » inspect » chat )]] 14:11, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Perhaps the Misspellings section could be removed, and the sentence "Filioque may be misspelled as filoque." added to the very end of the first paragraph? Especially in an article of this magnitude, giving a such a brief section to misspellings seems out of balance. —magda 19:31, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)