Talk:No Mind: The Flowers of Eternity: Difference between revisions
Dhyanantar (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
done. But 13th chapter is (see pages XII-XIII), it is part of the book and listed as 13th. It has date Jan, 10. The article IS, as I understand it, an edition, in most cases, - a book (editions = paper book, audio book, electronic book, video disk), therefore, i believe that the period should be determined on the basis of text of a book. --DhyanAntar 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC) | done. But 13th chapter is (see pages XII-XIII), it is part of the book and listed as 13th. It has date Jan, 10. The article IS, as I understand it, an edition, in most cases, - a book (editions = paper book, audio book, electronic book, video disk), therefore, i believe that the period should be determined on the basis of text of a book. --DhyanAntar 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
I agree that it is debatable. Thing is, this book is a "regular" first edition, so not a compilation... except that it has a kind of "afterword", with just a part of another lecture about Osho's name. Some books have a foreword, which is a part of another discourse - in those cases we also do not include the foreword in the date. That is why I plead for having just the regular discourses. | |||
And with compilations we usually do not give dates at all. --[[User:Sugit|Sugit]] ([[User talk:Sugit|talk]]) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 17:32, 24 May 2017
Hi Antar, I see you changed the end-date of this series from 7 to 10 Jan. I think this is not correct: the series clearly ends at the 7th. The material from Jan 10 is a quote from the next series. I suggest to roll back this change. --Sugit (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
done. But 13th chapter is (see pages XII-XIII), it is part of the book and listed as 13th. It has date Jan, 10. The article IS, as I understand it, an edition, in most cases, - a book (editions = paper book, audio book, electronic book, video disk), therefore, i believe that the period should be determined on the basis of text of a book. --DhyanAntar 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is debatable. Thing is, this book is a "regular" first edition, so not a compilation... except that it has a kind of "afterword", with just a part of another lecture about Osho's name. Some books have a foreword, which is a part of another discourse - in those cases we also do not include the foreword in the date. That is why I plead for having just the regular discourses.
And with compilations we usually do not give dates at all. --Sugit (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
