Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible codes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Over-powered language) |
(Use redirect to preserve links) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The use of the word 'zealot' in this sentence, 'On the side of some ‘Bible Code’ zealots...' seems a bit too strong of a word. I'm going to change it to 'believers' as it is a softer word that still gets the point across. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]] | The use of the word 'zealot' in this sentence, 'On the side of some ‘Bible Code’ zealots...' seems a bit too strong of a word. I'm going to change it to 'believers' as it is a softer word that still gets the point across. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Excellent point! Thanks! :) :) :) [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:46, 9 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Zealot comes across as sounding like they are fanatical and makes them look almost like a cult. That is the only problem I have, the rest of it is till good though. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Title== | ||
| + | I feel that ''Biblical codes'' (or ''Codes in the Bible'') would sound and scan better, though I may be mistaken. These titles would imply, however, that the Bible was discussing codes, so perhaps ''Biblical encoding'' would be more precise. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]]<sup>[[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]]</sup> 07:49, 10 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I thinking there certainly is a sense in which that is a good idea. But, my singular, and quite pressing, hunch is that any title but "Bible Codes" would be too complicated, even if more self-explanatory in a sense. Are you familiar with "Mind maps"? Specifically, with the most open-and-simple versions of them? I mean, any title which is so self-explanatory as never to be misleading for any frame of semantic reference would be far longer than the article itself. :) LOL! Feel free to change the title. But, if you do so, how does a wiki take care of all references in other articles to [[[Bible Codes]]? I do recall a 're-routing' thingy, but I don't know what it is, nor if it's automatic or if it has to be created manually. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 18:11, 10 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::If it was moved, this page should be replaced with a redirect, to preserve old links. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]]<sup>[[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]]</sup> 08:18, 11 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:18, June 11, 2011
Over-powered language
The use of the word 'zealot' in this sentence, 'On the side of some âBible Codeâ zealots...' seems a bit too strong of a word. I'm going to change it to 'believers' as it is a softer word that still gets the point across. MHarris
Excellent point! Thanks! :) :) :) PatternOfPersona 20:46, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
- Zealot comes across as sounding like they are fanatical and makes them look almost like a cult. That is the only problem I have, the rest of it is till good though.
Title
I feel that Biblical codes (or Codes in the Bible) would sound and scan better, though I may be mistaken. These titles would imply, however, that the Bible was discussing codes, so perhaps Biblical encoding would be more precise. Guymessage me 07:49, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- I thinking there certainly is a sense in which that is a good idea. But, my singular, and quite pressing, hunch is that any title but "Bible Codes" would be too complicated, even if more self-explanatory in a sense. Are you familiar with "Mind maps"? Specifically, with the most open-and-simple versions of them? I mean, any title which is so self-explanatory as never to be misleading for any frame of semantic reference would be far longer than the article itself. :) LOL! Feel free to change the title. But, if you do so, how does a wiki take care of all references in other articles to [[[Bible Codes]]? I do recall a 're-routing' thingy, but I don't know what it is, nor if it's automatic or if it has to be created manually. PatternOfPersona 18:11, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
- If it was moved, this page should be replaced with a redirect, to preserve old links. Guymessage me 08:18, 11 June 2011 (EDT)