Difference between revisions of "Talk:Biblical Odes"
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Then do we need to have the section in the [[Canon (hymn)]] article, or would it be better to have it refer to this article? —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 10:33, August 21, 2007 (PDT) | ::Then do we need to have the section in the [[Canon (hymn)]] article, or would it be better to have it refer to this article? —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 10:33, August 21, 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::There is obviously some overlap, and I suppose a case could be made for abreviating the section in the Canon's article, but it wouldn't hurt to leave what is there as it is. The main thing is you want people to understand that these odes are the basis for the structure of the canon, but they are distinct from the canon. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 03:44, August 22, 2007 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:44, August 22, 2007
Does this need its own article? There's a redundancy with a section of Canon (hymn). —magda (talk) 18:26, August 20, 2007 (PDT)
- There is a distinction between a canon, and the Biblical Odes. In most parishes and monasteries, we typically only do one biblical ode -- the 9th one, and on great feasts, even that is not done. The canon is always done. Frjohnwhiteford 03:43, August 21, 2007 (PDT)
- Then do we need to have the section in the Canon (hymn) article, or would it be better to have it refer to this article? —magda (talk) 10:33, August 21, 2007 (PDT)
- There is obviously some overlap, and I suppose a case could be made for abreviating the section in the Canon's article, but it wouldn't hurt to leave what is there as it is. The main thing is you want people to understand that these odes are the basis for the structure of the canon, but they are distinct from the canon. Frjohnwhiteford 03:44, August 22, 2007 (PDT)
