Talk:The Annals of Wales A

Information about this edition
Edition:	Ingram, James, translator. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: Everyman Press, 1912.
Source:	Medieval Sourcebook
Contributor(s):	User:Nicknack009
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:
Proofreaders:

Error?

I have little knowledge of Roman place names in Britain so I thought I had better flag this possible error up so that someone more knowledgeable about the subject can look at it and make any necessary alterations if my suspicions of this error are correct (or not if they are incorrect).

In the 7th century Chester is listed as Urbs Legionis:

601 The synod of Urbs Legionis [Chester].

However 12 years later it is listed as Caer Legion:

613 The battle of Caer Legion [Chester].

I'd guess that it might be a mistake based on the similarities of the words Legionis and Legion as I believe Caer Legion is now known as Caer Leon, an important Roman settlement near Newport (and according to some accounts the place from which Cardiff (Caer Dydd) gets it's name, being one day's travel from Caer Leon). Like I said though I am by no means an expert on Roman place names and do not know whether Chester was known by 2 names or not, but would like someone who is to take a look at it.--81.151.14.125 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not two names. It's the same name in two languages.LlywelynII (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A few points

First, and I'll try to fix this myself, this is not "Welsh Annals": it's the A Text of "the Annals of Wales". There's a B text, a C text, &c. that could also be translated and need this namespace to disambiguate them.

Second, this is an awful translation. I know there's a translator and a source for it, which is great. All the same, this format greatly misstates what the annals actually record: they don't use AD dates at all; they date from the establishment of Armagh by St. Patrick; and the specific date they used (afaik) remains a matter of controversy. We should graft these translations onto a format closer to the original (see below).

Third, I'm sure this is easy but I don't know how to go about it. We should link to the Latin original somewhere from this page. It's at Annales Cambriae A. The Latin Wikisource also has the B Text (Hence the need to turn this namespace into an intro or dab rather than just the A Text.) LlywelynII (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Fixed.
2. Some further discussion here on my talk page.
3. Fixed. LlywelynII (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We try not to judge the works of others, if it was published (passed a peer review), that is sufficient to host the version. We would happily host all versions and let others make any judgment on what is and what is not a good version. Have a look at {{versions}} and Wikisource:Versions for that sort of information. To link simply add [[la:Annales Cambriae A]] on the page here and [[en:The Annals of Wales]] at the corresponding page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are planning to add more versions, then we should look to keep the root name for the disambiguating {{versions}}. Our nomenclature for translations that are crowd sourced is something like [[The Annals of Wales B (Wikisource)]]. If there are multiple translations published, then we would do something like [[The Annals of Wales B (tr. Owen)]].

As there is complexity to what you propose, it is probably worth having a listing of the expected works and how they may be named. To note that we would not use subpages as we utilise subpages to display works of chapters/substantial sections/... and every work should exist as an entity at the root of the namespace. This way we remain true to the book/document/publication/... — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)