Talk:Book of hours

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

Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

The Latin word hours is horae, the English term primer is usually only used to refer to books of hours written in English.

These two parts joined by a comma are two separate sentence. To the uninitiated they are meaningless, they are not link and they are not useful. Take the first part: "The Latin word for hours is horae". Is this telling us that the word "hours" comes from the Latin "horae"?

"the English term primer is usually only used to refer to books of hours written in English". This is interesting but because it includes the word "only" the sentence presumes that the reader knows that the word "primer" is used, and is telling the reader how and when to use it. It should probably state something like "The word "primer" is sometimes used to refer to books of the hours that are written in English."

This is not my subject. Could someone who knows the subject tidy up the language? Amandajm (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've discovered the source of the problem. User PeterKidd removed a great deal of what he perceived as useless and repetitive material. This had the result of turning parts of the article into gibberish, intelligible only to the initiated. The clear statement that the Latin word was Horae and the English word was "primer" is one of the things that he removed. I'm reverting all his edits, and you lot can reread this article very thoroughly in order to decide what the ordinary reader needs. Please don't chop it about so ruthlessly that it looses clarity.

Amandajm (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, noting that I combined the Notes & References sections. References need to be cleaned up of its redundancies, but unfortunately it is too late to begin this project in my timezone. I may attempt it in the future if no one else takes up the task. Gnome out. EarthSprite^∞ 08:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad style - reverted. No more edits like this please. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]