Talk:Chronicle of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did You Know An entry from Chronicle of Ireland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 November 2006.
Wikipedia
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

[edit] A note on the current article

The current edit is, for the most part, a precis of the introduction to the reference work listed at the bottom. T.M. Charles-Edwards' new, annotated translation opens with about 60 pages of background on the Chronicle's history and on scholars' ongoing attempts to piece it together from extant sources. I've attempted to extract and reassemble the information which is most likely to be of interest to general readers. Dppowell 17:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jreferee Chronicle of Ireland edits

Hi there...I'm not the one who reverted your changes, but I thought I'd try to offer some insights into why the reversion was probably made. First, wikifying all dates, years, etc. is generally frowned upon unless something about the date is crucial to a wider understanding of the article's topic. Second, it's standard practice to only wikify the first instance of a term in an article; "Ireland" doesn't need to be linked every time it comes up in History of Ireland, and so forth. Good luck with your continued contributions. Dppowell 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it was me. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) guideline says:

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

I am very firmly in the camp that believes that superfluous year links are a Bad Thing and that overlinking damages readability. In Irish contexts the term annals or annal is usually applied rather than chronicle, so a link to chronicle is not necessarily helpful. Annals explains the link between these an Easter tables (which in turn explains why some events are sometimes grossly misdated). Trust this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I wasn't happy seeing all my edits deleted. However, after reading the above, I kept two of my edits and removed the rest.--Jreferee 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)