Talk:Gaelic Journal

A fact from Gaelic Journal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Gaelic Journal, first published in 1882, was described as being "the first journal devoted to the living Irish language"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/April.

Wikipedia

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts Low‑importance

	Gaelic Journal is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

References[edit]

Reference 1a and 1b are not valid sources. They just link back to the article itself and do not lead outside the wiki. I suggest removing the reference and suggest inserting a {{fact}}. Any objections? Obviously if someone can correct the reference that would be more desirable. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you misunderstand. The link takes you to the full reference under the Reference section. No fact tag is required. Cavila (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that might have confused me too. I'd suggest simplifying the access to the source for the reader. Hohenloh⁺ 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, hmm. I can't really see what the problem is, the active links from the letters a and b going back to the text? That's the way it is whenever <ref name> is used to gather identical references, same way ^ goes back to a single reference. Or is it the separation of references from full citation? Anyway, I really prefer not having the full {{citation}} templates within the text, but I'll change the format if others feel confused. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like having the citation templates in the article's body text, you can always sort them in the bottom of the article inside the {{Reflist}}, using the |refs= parameter, and then using the WP:REFNAME in the body. See Arent Solem or F. S. Platou for examples. --Eisfbnore ^talk 08:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anyone, please feel free to change the format of the refs in this article if another format than the one currently used is preferred. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And while we're at it: The first ref lacks publisher information. Best, Eisfbnore ^talk 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks much better. I'm really not sure who should be listed as publisher for that source, there's a note at the end of the article on its "origin-history" however. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll guess there are three possibilities:

Cite the original, off-line piece:

Ó Flannghaile, Tomás (1883). "Our Position". Gaelic Journal. Dublin. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

...or cite the chapter in Flannghaile's 1896 For the tongue of the Gael book:

Ó Flannghaile, Tomás (1896). "The Starting of the Gaelic Journal, November 1882". For the tongue of the Gael: A selection of essays literary and philological on Irish-Gaelic subjects. Dublin: City of London Book Depôt. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

Or simply cite the web entry at Library Ireland:

"The Starting of the Gaelic Journal, November 1882". Library Ireland. Retrieved 10 April 2010.

I'd prefer the first. --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaelic Journal. 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/20111001215611/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Douglas_Hyde3344120424 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Douglas_Hyde3344120424

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]