Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Definition: new section) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Move?: a couple of brief replies) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Also, shouldn't [[Books of the Bible]] be a subpage? I suggested that a long time ago but no one seems to have noticed. I can't find anywhere to post suggested moves. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | Also, shouldn't [[Books of the Bible]] be a subpage? I suggested that a long time ago but no one seems to have noticed. I can't find anywhere to post suggested moves. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I don't myself think "The" should be there. Just checked WP to see what *they* say about it, and they don't use "the" either. Volume 4 of my 1940 EB has "Bible", so that's two out of two. I suggest that we Move it. (Just checked the NYT Manual of Style, and they don't use it either, so that's three for three.) | |||
:As for [[Books of the Bible]], I think a separate article is fine. There's plenty of other material to put in the Bible article itself. But I really don't care one way or the other. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Definition == | == Definition == | ||
That seems like a *really* strange definition to me. Could be about a collection of short stories by Conan-Doyle or John O'Hara. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | That seems like a *really* strange definition to me. Could be about a collection of short stories by Conan-Doyle or John O'Hara. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:34, 6 January 2011
Move?
Does the definite article belong in the title? Peter Jackson 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't Books of the Bible be a subpage? I suggested that a long time ago but no one seems to have noticed. I can't find anywhere to post suggested moves. Peter Jackson 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't myself think "The" should be there. Just checked WP to see what *they* say about it, and they don't use "the" either. Volume 4 of my 1940 EB has "Bible", so that's two out of two. I suggest that we Move it. (Just checked the NYT Manual of Style, and they don't use it either, so that's three for three.)
- As for Books of the Bible, I think a separate article is fine. There's plenty of other material to put in the Bible article itself. But I really don't care one way or the other. Hayford Peirce 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Definition
That seems like a *really* strange definition to me. Could be about a collection of short stories by Conan-Doyle or John O'Hara. Hayford Peirce 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)