Talk:Bible: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson (→Move?) |
imported>Peter Jackson |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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) | ||
:It's quite common for books on all sorts of subjects to be called bibles, even in their titles. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:56, 7 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)
- Who actually decides, and who actually does it? Peter Jackson 10:55, 7 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)
- It's quite common for books on all sorts of subjects to be called bibles, even in their titles. Peter Jackson 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)