A fact from Tradition appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 February 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited as part of the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program's
Editing Fridays project.
|
Christmas trees are only a hundred years old? That wasn't my impression. -- April
Moved this from the article:
It's a good suggestion. The Eastern Orthodox Church distinguishes between Holy Tradition and mere traditions; this may or may not be the place to explore that. I expect that the Roman Catholic Church does as well. Wesley 15:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have added a couple of sentences about the Roman Catholic Church's Traditionalism doctrine, as I understand it. PatrickDunfordNZ 10:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
vandalism: birthday tradition to shove a broom ... ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.172.144 ( talk) 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
A hobitual practice or dealing in thing to made
Would this page be able to change to a disambiguation page? I added the bit up top about seeing other uses of the word 'tradition'. Is there any way to change it so that it is easier for users who are searching for other uses to directly end up on the disambiguation page?
Kerfl772 ( talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
BY:
Justine I. Laserna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.2 ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
je t'aime ciomme une fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.167.254 ( talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is original research, no citation was given to prove this statement.
For such acts or practices, once performed, disappear unless they have been transformed into some manner of communicable information.
This citation format is unacceptable. You either provide direct link or if online resources don't have it, you specify the author e.g.
<ref>p.775, Klein</ref> -- Ramu50 ( talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section need work. It's too focused on an interpretation of one particular philosopher's views and it is poorly written. Matt2h ( talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone recently tried to remove the section titled ("Traditions and stylings of the mannerism") ( here). I've restored the section, because the removal was without explanation. But I have to admit, I have some doubts on whether the section belongs at all. So I'm starting this discussion topic to get some opinions on it; maybe we can find a consensus on what to do about it. My main concern is that much of it is OR-ey, little of it is sourced, and none of it gives me any idea what the title "Traditions and stylings of the mannerism" is getting at. -- Why Not A Duck 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.4.80 ( talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
upon reading this wiki a few months ago, I noticed a lack of information on the web concerning the morphology of the accusative form of traditio. I have tried my best to provide an accurate breakdown of the word traditionem, but must admit, other than a keen interest in linguistics, I have no formal background. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is NO INFORMATION ONLINE concerning the suffix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The three current section headings are:
So, we probably need sections on:
Just some suggestions, but if the sections are in place early on it will be easier for collaborators to work simultaneously on the article. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated the article to T:TDYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Tradition. I tried to include all ambassadors who made substantial edits; if I missed anybody (which is quite possible), my apologies - and please add yourself to the authors. The template seems to support only three authors? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if our recent edits have not improved the article to B-class? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
To be official here is an informal review
Done While not at GA everything that could be reasonably challenged has a citation
Done We did this well
Done Lead -> Definition -> Creation of traditions -> In discourse -> preservation
Done has been copyedited several times
Done Images are present
Done There is background when there needs to be.
cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 06:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
we tend to assume that the ability to learn is determinted by such things as haw clever you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.23.97 ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
difinition of pollution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.102.214.75 ( talk) 13:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tradition. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether they are documented fact or not does not decrease their value as cultural history and literature.
I'm imagining Jesus showing up, rather late in the day, according to the traditional lore of the Second Coming, and then patiently explaining that his resurrection never really happening way back when, it was always just a story, but a story mankind needed to believe at that time.
Apparently we already know that this would not "decrease the value" of the Biblical account of Jesus life as presently understood (in many different ways), though it would surely be a seismic body blow in 7000 other dimensions. — MaxEnt 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Tradition and ceremony 192.145.168.43 ( talk) 16:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
A fact from Tradition appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 February 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was edited as part of the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program's
Editing Fridays project.
|
Christmas trees are only a hundred years old? That wasn't my impression. -- April
Moved this from the article:
It's a good suggestion. The Eastern Orthodox Church distinguishes between Holy Tradition and mere traditions; this may or may not be the place to explore that. I expect that the Roman Catholic Church does as well. Wesley 15:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have added a couple of sentences about the Roman Catholic Church's Traditionalism doctrine, as I understand it. PatrickDunfordNZ 10:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
vandalism: birthday tradition to shove a broom ... ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.172.144 ( talk) 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
A hobitual practice or dealing in thing to made
Would this page be able to change to a disambiguation page? I added the bit up top about seeing other uses of the word 'tradition'. Is there any way to change it so that it is easier for users who are searching for other uses to directly end up on the disambiguation page?
Kerfl772 ( talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
BY:
Justine I. Laserna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.2 ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
je t'aime ciomme une fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.167.254 ( talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is original research, no citation was given to prove this statement.
For such acts or practices, once performed, disappear unless they have been transformed into some manner of communicable information.
This citation format is unacceptable. You either provide direct link or if online resources don't have it, you specify the author e.g.
<ref>p.775, Klein</ref> -- Ramu50 ( talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section need work. It's too focused on an interpretation of one particular philosopher's views and it is poorly written. Matt2h ( talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone recently tried to remove the section titled ("Traditions and stylings of the mannerism") ( here). I've restored the section, because the removal was without explanation. But I have to admit, I have some doubts on whether the section belongs at all. So I'm starting this discussion topic to get some opinions on it; maybe we can find a consensus on what to do about it. My main concern is that much of it is OR-ey, little of it is sourced, and none of it gives me any idea what the title "Traditions and stylings of the mannerism" is getting at. -- Why Not A Duck 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.4.80 ( talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
upon reading this wiki a few months ago, I noticed a lack of information on the web concerning the morphology of the accusative form of traditio. I have tried my best to provide an accurate breakdown of the word traditionem, but must admit, other than a keen interest in linguistics, I have no formal background. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is NO INFORMATION ONLINE concerning the suffix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The three current section headings are:
So, we probably need sections on:
Just some suggestions, but if the sections are in place early on it will be easier for collaborators to work simultaneously on the article. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated the article to T:TDYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Tradition. I tried to include all ambassadors who made substantial edits; if I missed anybody (which is quite possible), my apologies - and please add yourself to the authors. The template seems to support only three authors? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if our recent edits have not improved the article to B-class? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
To be official here is an informal review
Done While not at GA everything that could be reasonably challenged has a citation
Done We did this well
Done Lead -> Definition -> Creation of traditions -> In discourse -> preservation
Done has been copyedited several times
Done Images are present
Done There is background when there needs to be.
cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 06:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
we tend to assume that the ability to learn is determinted by such things as haw clever you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.23.97 ( talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
difinition of pollution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.102.214.75 ( talk) 13:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tradition. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether they are documented fact or not does not decrease their value as cultural history and literature.
I'm imagining Jesus showing up, rather late in the day, according to the traditional lore of the Second Coming, and then patiently explaining that his resurrection never really happening way back when, it was always just a story, but a story mankind needed to believe at that time.
Apparently we already know that this would not "decrease the value" of the Biblical account of Jesus life as presently understood (in many different ways), though it would surely be a seismic body blow in 7000 other dimensions. — MaxEnt 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Tradition and ceremony 192.145.168.43 ( talk) 16:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)