7,257
edits
Changes
m
How to (would you) add Bulgarian saints on front page? --[[User:Marzata{|Marzata]] 13align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border:51, January 7, 2006 (CST)1px solid #CC9; background-color:Answered on Marzata's Talk page. [[User:FrJohn|Fr. John]] 16#F1F1DE; width:55, January 7, 2006 (CST)100%"
----May I suggest adding [[Orthodox Media]] |'''This page is for only for discussing the layout and content of the Main Page.''' Please use the [[Magazines_and_PublicationsOrthodoxWiki:Trapeza]] somewhere on for general site discussion. Use the main + tab at the top of this page. Possibly under Other on the list if you want to add a discussion topic about the right? --[[User:Joe RodgersMain Page.|Joe Rodgers]] 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)}
: The list on this page has mainly been used for categories, and both == A suggestion about the saints 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)day ==
:: Sounds good. Sorry if I seem know that a majority of the Orthodox in America are on the New Calendar, but since a little zealous (careless?). I would think that things like this majority of the Orthodox in the world are on the Old, would it be possible to list the saints of interest the day according to "seekers" and might warrant a prominent placementeach calendar... --somewhat along the lines of what is done on the main page of [[Userhttp:Joe Rodgers|Joe Rodgers//orthodoxinfo.com Orthodoxinfo.com]] 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)?
: I think there's definitely some merit in the idea-Fr. My main concern is that I don't want to promise content by having it prominent and then not deliver, so to speakJohn Whiteford 3-22-07 (3-09-07 o. 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 categoriess. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 12) :19, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
: That was actually * Edit all 366 calendar day templates to include a separate section for the idea OC day. (This will require some rearranging of the [[Introduction main page design to Orthodox Christianity]] article, that it would serve as an overview with component articles explaining fundamental concepts and practicesaccount for the extra text. I think it would be great )* Figure out some way to code the wiki to develop display a template for separate section which automatically figures -13 days. At the moment, the daily feasts section is possible because the wiki "knows" what day it, as wellis today. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User:ASDamick/sig}}]] 13:00, 28 Jun 2005 (EDTThis 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 :The difficulty with the former, aside from being a large amount of work, would be that having no Table it would make all the many thousands of Contents on internal links to dates confused: to which date should they link? Both? The calendar local to the Main Page is a good idea. What do you thinksaint when he died? {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 17:33Either way, 26 October 2005 (CDT)this would require a level of work I don't even want to begin to imagine.
==Dissapointment==This wiki seems to have a TON of stuff on church history:In any event, yet hardly has anything on since we invented the foundations of "Today's feasts" section, I've wished we could display the faith (OC feasts, as well. —[[Jesus ChristUser:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]], <sup>[[TrinityUser_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]). 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. </sup> <small>[[UserSpecial:J23Contributions/ASDamick|J23<font color="black">contribs</font>]] 00</small> 05:1113, March 22, 31 October 2005 2007 (CSTPDT)
==Featured Article==If I may ask of the featured article to be changed (it has been a little while)::The second option, I also proffer suggestions: [[Afterfeast]]using math, [[Autocephaly]]is better, but [[Basil the Great]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Calculation calculations]do not seem to work here. No vested interest - pretty much anything will doBut if it did, not only could OC dates be calculated, just to get it cycling againbut moving feast days could be calculated too. - - [[User:PistevoAndrew|oeaAndrew]] 0006:0641, March 22, 3 November 2005 2007 (CSTPDT)
"Strictly speaking, Byzantine Chant is the sacred chant of Christian Churches following the Orthodox rite."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::::-Fr..-- [[User:Stmaterne|StMaterne]]John Whiteford
: 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:::-Fr.htmlJohn Whiteford
No pinkIt 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. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 22:28, November 23, 2005 (CST)
Ok, ok! Maybe beige? Something warm. [[User:FrJohn|-Fr. John]]Whiteford
P:Hi Fr.SJohn, Thanks for your comment. I thought 'm not sure I know what you were going to say that. mean - is this issue clarified on the [[Julian Calendar]] page? — [[User:FrJohn|Fr<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki. John]org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk])
: Well, our calendar system for fixed feasts is necessarily New Calendar, since I don't think == A new suggestion about the wiki can automatically support a -13 on its day calculation. (St. Sava's day is Saints of the 14th of January.) {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 12:56, January 27, 2006 (CST)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 Then the appropriateness or otherwise main page could draw from the text of insisting on Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) at the day page rather than the templates. What think ye all times on OrthodoxWiki ? [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 10:13, April 19, 2007 (OWPDT).
To my mind this often takes OW out of step with current attitudes : 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 trends within includes the Mainstream Orthodox Churches (MOC) themselvesproper template accordingly. If you know how to make the wiki calculate -13 from the date it "knows," then we're in business.
One example is OW: The main page doesn's rejection of my use of Pre-Chalcedonian t include [[April 19]], but rather [[Template:April 19]]. Editing [[April 19]] to describe those Orthodox Churches which had difficulty accepting include [[Template:April 6]] only adjusts [[April 19]] and would not show up on the decisions of Chalcedon being enforced on them by Imperial troopsmain page. Mainstream Orthodox Churches are using the term Pre-Chalcedonian in preference If, however, you were to edit [[Template:April 19]] to Non-Chalcedonian include [[Template:April 6]] (and do the term currently used on OWsame for all calendar days). Pre-Chalcedonian is , the output would be a neutral non-offensive term for those who did not agree to recursive, endless loop including the emperor's dictatentire calendar and repeating infinitely.
For instance, in : Having the main page include [[April 2006 Moscow decided to formally visit the Chalcedonian Christological problem in great depth19]] (that is, and set up as a Select Committee to investigate current notionsnew template, not as [[http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/465/6/April 19]]. The Holy Synod ), however, would mean having to create a whole series of Moscow also uses the term Pre-Chalcedonian nested templates, involving changing every single link to a date in preference to the emotive and biased term Non-Chalcedonianwhole 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.)
The recent French articles by mainstream Orthodox I have read in hardback, use the term Pre-Chalcedonian (in French).
The hierarchs and priests : I really think we need to find some sort of extension for the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches in Australiawiki so that it can "know" what day it was 13 days ago. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, all object to the term Non-ChalcedonianTimes New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[Eastern HierarchsUser_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]] 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</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 13:45, 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 wrongApril 19, since they themselves condemn any denial of the union of two in the one hypostases. 2007 (PDT)
Monophysite :: 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 Greek term. It was wrong in template for Apirl 19 which is formated such that it has two subtemplates: one with the first place to try to impose menologion for April 19th, and another that would be preceeded by a Greek term on Coptic speakerslable such as April 6th, and Syriac speakersO.S. (or something like that) with a template for the April 6th Menologion.::To make this happen, without fully explaining we would need to rename the nuances of all related termscalendar templates as we now have them, and hearing the nuances 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 related Coptic and Syriac termsactual 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 ::: 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 discussionnon-template date article, we cannot have a full understanding you see two sets of this aspect of Christology. If we go into the discussion insisting our philhellenic viewpoint is rightdates, then we perpetuate one "new" and the impossibility of full understandingother "old." But which one did the link you followed reference?
Saying ::: I also think the 13 problem days during a decision is correct because it was made by majority vote, is fraught with great danger, especially when it comes to doctrineleap year would make for some serious design imbalance and ugliness on the Main Page. With doctrine(Of course, decisions should be by consensus having two sets of the whole Church. If consensus cannot be reachedfeasts will likely require some redesigning, then the time for that definition is not rightanyway. )
That was ::: I'm hoping that [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] might be willing to look into the great tragedy 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 councils. The emperors insisted OS feasts on doctrinal unity. Constantine did not really care which way the decision wentMain Page, he just wanted doctrinal unity, so people would stop fighting about ittoo. Of course—[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, the result was worse. Each time a council forced a decisionGaramond, Georgia, institutional division resulted. Islam succeeded against Christianity because the Eastern Times New Roman Empire resorted to force of arms against its own people to force obedience to conciliar decrees on Christian doctrine">Fr. Egypt was estranged. Syria was estranged. Islam succeeded against these Christian provinces, because they were internally weakened by imperial forcing of doctrinal Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="unityblack". >contribs</font>]]</small> 19:28, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
The sooner we get out of our castles and meet out ::: '''Addendum:''' Okay, I've learned that I was wrong about including articles that are in the openmain namespace (i.e., the sooner we anything that doesn't have a "Something:" in front of it). You can put include a main namespace article by this warlikeness behind us, and get on with the first and the second great commands. Many think Christsyntax: '''<nowiki>{{:ArticleName}}</nowiki>'''s commands are more important than perpetuating divisions arising from imperial motivation.
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.) —[[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===Well, I just messed around with importing various templates from [[meta: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 Category:-) , 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 GhostDate computing template]], but used the Latin "processio" for the both of I either imported them? (Who knows, maybe they werenwrongly or perhaps our wiki doesn'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 ... :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 have the way that they both connect extensions to Eastern-Orthodoxy: : 1) the '''Catholics''' say that their Pneumatology is fully-compatible with that do this sort of the Church-Fathers, -- i.emath. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="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, ..3. ''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?5" -- to which the Catholics say: color="Nooo! ... offcourse NOT! ... who gave You ''that'' idea?!green" ... and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the Epiklesis from the Liturgy, because face="the Words of the Institution are all You needAdobe Garamond Pro, because the ancients allways thaught that the Word of God was the agent of His own Incarnation in the Virgin's whombGaramond, 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 laterGeorgia, by the Constantine-sponsored synodTimes New Roman">Fr. -- 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 Andrew<person/font> and ]] <naturesup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color=" (just like the Romans said red"we don't have special words for >talk<ekporeusis/font>") -- 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 -- sup> <small>[[UserSpecial:Luci83roContributions/ASDamick|Luci83ro<font color="black">contribs</font>]] 13</small> 20:1030, July 6April 19, 2006 (CDT)::Who told you this? In the Coptic 2007 (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 ismixed with water as the mixture of the blood and water poured out of Jesus side when He was on the cross."PDT)
:Hi Gabriela, Please do go ahead and add him -- Just click on In the Saints starting topic the date "June 3" to find Greek saints aren't mentioned( they are mentioned thought in the right Saints starting page). Thanks, {{ —[[User:FrJohnHarry|<font size="3.5">Harry</sig}}font>]]:The Lithuanian Saints were missing too - [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 12:23, March 31, 2008 (PDT)
Is Hi, could someone please add the Christ is Risen tag and maybe a picture to this some sort of fundamentalist Christian Wiki? main page!! [[User:Sharp ShooterIxthis888|Abbas bin Quasar HidayatullahVasiliki]] 0623:5407, July 15April 28, 2006 2008 (CDTUTC)
== 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). —[[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 colorMonophysitism vs Oriental Orthodoxy ="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 08:21, July 31, 2006 (CDT)
== OrthodoWiki logo for Old CalendaristsHi, 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: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. —[[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</wwwfont>]]</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) == 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.bishopmaximus{{unsigned|Iliada}} : We usually keep external links confined to articles and not on the main page, which is dedicated to internal links to OrthodoxWiki.com —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</links_list.phphttpfont>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/www.bishopmaximus.comASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</links_body.php?idfont>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 11:31, March 17, 2009 (UTC)
:: 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 There are immediately looking two possibilities for tangible ways to learn more about Orthodoxy. I know this 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]] 12can think of:46, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
:I put '''<nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>''' m hoping perhaps [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] knows of some module or something he can plug in, but when I tried or write to check it, it looked like I broke teach the wikihow to figure out what day it was 13 days ago. I reverted, but that didn't help anything, so I figured it was still in "update" statusIt seems like a relatively simple thing for a computer to figure. In other words, I agree with youThe first solution seems almost insurmountable to me. [[User:Magda|{{User:Magda/sig}}]] 20:51, 26 October 2005 (CDT)
: Part :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 it 13 days earlier. The problem isthat on leap years, I think, that our current contributors feel less qualified the first half of March will need to work on such articles be altered and so they are being approached with much more cautionaltered back afterwards. Feel free (The page could just display a link to assist in those areasthe other day instead of displaying the text). {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 05:48, 31 October 2005 (CST)
::Agreed! :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:FrJohnMagda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|Fr. Johntalk]]) 09:18, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
:: Yes, please do so. I don: Editing templates to include the template from 13 days earlier wouldn't really have the work, as it would become multi-referential and end up including all 366 days every time right now to continue to maintain this as I have. I've been hoping that others would join In addition, inleap years, the alignment is different around Feb. 29. {{—[[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</sig}} 15font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:03Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:25, March 22, 3 November 2005 2007 (CSTPDT)
::::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.
: Interestingly:::: 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, what we now know as Byzantine chant essentially came out of will be different from one year to the Syriac churchnext. The vast majority of what now makes up I think the hymnography and music of only way this will work is if we can somehow get the Orthodox Church came from wiki to calculate -13 based on <nowiki>{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>, which generates the ascetic life in Syriaappropriate date. —[[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)
::You::: I can're busted for authorial promotion t imagine that that would be compatible with the wiki software. —[[User:AleksASDamick|Aleks<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]]!! Not sure how to integrate the script onto an OrthodoxWiki page -- maybe through an <sup>[[OrthodoxWikiUser_talk:ExtensionsASDamick|extension<font color="red">talk</font>]]? If you can figure it out, let me know. </sup> <small>[[UserSpecial:FrJohnContributions/ASDamick|Fr. John<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:28, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
== Please..Scientific Julian Date vs. Julian Calendar ==
:: See [[Wikipedia:Julian day]]. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size==St"3. Sava commemoration5" color="green" face=This is Alexi. May I ask you to mention on today's feasts that 27 january in Serbia and Montenegro"Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, and wherevr Serbs liveGeorgia, is StTimes New Roman">Fr. Sava's Day, one of the most important church holidays for Serbs! Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[UserSpecial:AlexiContributions/ASDamick|Alexi<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:29, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
:Does that work for everyone? {{::I added this as a link on the [[Julian Calendar]] page. — [[User:MagdaFrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/sig}} 08User_talk:53, January 27, 2006 (CSTFrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk])
: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 But that then introduces confusion for folks who click on the nuances [[April 19]] and history see two sets of the two terms, if worded properlyfeasts, one labeled as "Old" and one as "New." This would be an excellent addition to one of a problem, for instance, in the articles dealing with these questions[[Annunciation]] article. For my part, I don't You click on [[March 25]] and see non-Chalcedonian as derogatory at all, or very emotive. My understanding is that this term is used instead of the more polemical "monophysiteNew" feasts include Annunciation, but the " or even Old"so-called monophysitedo not." I haven Does that mean that Old Calendarists aren't been exposed to celebrating the term pre-Chalcedonian before. I donAnnunciation on March 25? In fact, they ''are't think I'd prefer celebrating iton March 25, since but by another calendar. I don't can think it's possible to roll back the clock -- in this of no way it seems dishonest. On the other hand, I like the idea of solving that the "Oriental Orthodox" churches haven't so much directly rejected Chalecedonian Christology, but were cut off from full participation by Imperial powersproblem. {{User:FrJohn/sig}}
::: If we have to do the hard-coding solution, it might end up being possible not to have to nest templates, after all. We must look for and see would, however, have to reformat the other viewpointscalendar day articles (e.g., [[April 19]]) with various instances of <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and try to be less offensive, whether knowingly or unknowingly<nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags. (I could probably make my [[User:ByzBot|bot]] do that. )
=Adding links for new saint articles on their commemoration date?=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)=Something missing===
== Fundamentalist Wiki? Christ is Risen on Main Page ==
: Nope! Fundamentalism is a form of Protestantism. OrthodoxWiki is dedicated to [[Orthodox Christianity]]Done. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="bluegreen" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman"><b><i>DcnFr. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <supsmall>[[Special:RandompageContributions/ASDamick|<font color="blueblack">randomcontribs</font>]]</sup> <supfont face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[SpecialUser:ContributionsASDamick/ASDamickWiki-philosophy|<font color="black">contribsTHINK!]]''')</font>]]</supsmall> 0823:5837, July 15April 28, 2006 2008 (CDTUTC)
