Talk:Bede

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bede has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
July 16, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
August 1, 2013 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Digitised version of Moore Bede[edit]

We (Cambridge University Digital Library) have recently digitised and put online the Moore Bede:

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00005-00016/1

Would this be a useful reference for this and other Bede related pages? I've put the same info on the Moore Bede talk page, but don't really have the subject expertise to edit directly

EifionJones (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming of Easter[edit]

Etymological dictionaries cite Bede as the sole source for the word "Easter." In most other languages, the holiday's name shares the root with Passover (Pasch). The Bede article includes his interest in dating Easter, but not his resurrection of the (if I understand correctly) disused name for a pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre or Ostara. The article for Bede would be improved by some discussion of his import in not just the dating, but also the naming, of the holiday (by someone with more knowledge on the matter than me). -kslays (talkcontribs) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Circa ...[edit]

Per MOS:CIRCA - the template is not required. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: You can use the {{Circa|673|lk=yes}} form to get the link and still keep the template. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
And ... what does that really buy us rather than just going [[circa|c.]]. The plain link has the advantage of being more intelligible to newcomers - it behaves precisely as every other link does. What does the template gain us, really, besides being different than other links? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
MOS:CIRCA indicates to use plain "c." (which would be my preference) or the template. It doesn't suggest manually linking. Personally I'd imagine that the sort of person reading about Bede would know that c. 673 meant "673 or thereabouts, no one is certain". If is must be linked, then we might as well use the template, just like with {{sic}}. I assume that is why the IP user has been reverting you. To be honest, I was just looking for the middle way which uses the template the IP user wants and keeps the link you want. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But that doesn't answer the question of what the template gains us over linking. NOt everyone reading an article is going to understand "circa" is abbreviated "c." - so a link is good. I'm just not seeing what the template gains in terms of understanding or editing ability. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The template helpfully provides a tooltip. When the mouse pointer is hovered over "c." it reads "circa". Elizium23 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You know regular links provide that too, right? c. and c. 900 have the same functionality. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually {{circa|900}} is annoying on a Mac, hovering over it just produces a question mark at first, then the tooltip appears if you hang around long enough. On the other hand [[circa|c.]] does indeed have that function, even on a Mac. Nortonius (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion is better had on MOS:CIRCA or Template talk:Circa because this is not an issue about the article but rather you are questioning why the MOS specifies use of a template and why it is like it is. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
As a Mac user myself, I fail to see how the question mark that indicates a tooltip is "annoying". And aside, perhaps, from the question mark, it's no different from what is on a PC (as best as I can recall – it's been a while since I've used a PC regularly). 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's a personal thing – I'd just rather see the thing, not a thing that's telling you there's going to be a thing ... Nortonius (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I assume that is why the IP user has been reverting you. I don't believe they were reverted by an IP user. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)