Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Jesse Weinstein (New page: {{subpages}}) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) (adding Twain quote) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Move? == | |||
Does the definite article belong in the title? [[User:Peter Jackson|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. [[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) | |||
::Who actually decides, and who actually does it? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::It seems to me that that sort of thing is just what Catalogs pages are for. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree with Peter, FWIW. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::I've be-bolded. Also, I agree that 'books' ought to be a subpage, but not sure how to do that. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 02:27, 18 July 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. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:It's quite common for books on all sorts of subjects to be called bibles, even in their titles. However, I don't think that's really appropriate for the main article, especially if it's ''the''. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
[[Category:Rename suggested]] | |||
== wrong focus == | |||
This overview article should, as noted above, first contain a generic definition for any bible, as opposed the "The Bible" in Christian terms.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 20:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:For instance, for many many years, [[The Sporting News]] called itself "The Bible (bible?) of Baseball" -- and thousands of sportswriters and their articles went along with this, never, as far as I know, in an ironic way. I've encountered other "bibles" but can't call them to mind at the moment -- they certainly exist(ed), though.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] ([[User talk:Hayford Peirce|talk]]) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== snarky Twain quote == | |||
Probably can't work this into the article, but it's worth noting here: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain (On ''the'' Bible) [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:49, 16 January 2023
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)
- Who actually decides, and who actually does it? Peter Jackson 10:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that that sort of thing is just what Catalogs pages are for. Peter Jackson 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Peter, FWIW. --Larry Sanger 02:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've be-bolded. Also, I agree that 'books' ought to be a subpage, but not sure how to do that. Ro Thorpe 02:27, 18 July 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)
- It's quite common for books on all sorts of subjects to be called bibles, even in their titles. However, I don't think that's really appropriate for the main article, especially if it's the. Peter Jackson 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong focus
This overview article should, as noted above, first contain a generic definition for any bible, as opposed the "The Bible" in Christian terms.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- For instance, for many many years, The Sporting News called itself "The Bible (bible?) of Baseball" -- and thousands of sportswriters and their articles went along with this, never, as far as I know, in an ironic way. I've encountered other "bibles" but can't call them to mind at the moment -- they certainly exist(ed), though.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
snarky Twain quote
Probably can't work this into the article, but it's worth noting here: "It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain (On the Bible) Pat Palmer (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (CST)