Contents

Talk:Feast of the Ascension

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 17, 2012, May 29, 2014, and June 9, 2016.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Holidays This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The lead is currently structured:

"...is one of the great solemnities in the Christian liturgical calendar ... is one of the ecumenical feasts (i.e., universally celebrated)"

But "solemnity" is defined in its article as being specifically Roman Catholic. In other words, the lead is currently emphasising the Catholic-specific aspect over and above the much wider ecumenical.

But the purpose of an article's lead is to stay reasonably general and introductory, and not to emphasis too much detail of a limited aspect. And this article is about a general, ecumenical subject. So shouldn't this general ecumenical aspect take precedence over the more limited-aspect Catholic interpretation? Accordingly, I'm adjusting the lead by more or less reversing those. It has the added benefit of combining two Catholic aspects which had previously been split apart (the other aspect is the transfer of the feast day) into a common region of the lead. 31.185.216.215 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good edit actually. You can do more of those, and no need for a long debate. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alas, I realised after the event that my WP login expired just around the time of my reading and editing, so my edits got done as anon-IP rather than under my account, which is... Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not know it was you... long time no talk. How are things? I had not seen your edits for a while. We have had too many good editors retiring right and left, so it is good to see that you are still participating. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and made Holy Thursday a dab page. The name "Holy Thursday" appears to be truly ambiguous; it refers either to Maundy ThursdayorAscension Day, so a disambiguation page is appropriate. I've added the dab page to the categories appropriate to both the pages to which it points. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your subsequent edits. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Roman Catholic Church in a number of countries (...) has obtained permission from the Vatican to move observance of the Feast of the Ascension from the traditional Thursday to the following Sunday, the Sunday before Pentecost"

"The Roman Catholic Church" has obtained permission form "the Vatican", but it's odd because Vatican means -I suppose that it's metonymic meaning is used, the literal one being a hill in Rome- the head of the Roman Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church itslef, leading to someone that gives permission to himself!

Fixed, piped Vatican to Holy SeePincrete (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And ""The Roman Catholic Church in a number of countries" look like that many Roman Catholic Churchs exist. Wouldn't be better to move "in a number of countries" after "to move observance of the Feast of the Ascension" words in the sentence? --109.54.26.200 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seems remarkably unqualified. History: "the grotto in Bethlehem in which Christ was born". 173.225.148.173 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to 'traditionally regarded as having been born'.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feast of the Ascension. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203233429/http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/658911/part_2/the-spectators-notes.thtmltohttp://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/658911/part_2/the-spectators-notes.thtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]