Talk:Colin Robert Chase

Publications vs bibliography
As a reader, I'd expect all of the references used to be gathered in the bibliography... should the two utilized Chase references be double-counted? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , I see what you're saying. That might make more sense in an article where the referenced publications are being used for the information that they contain, whereas here they're really just being used as pointers to the works in question. In the sentence "Chase's other major publication was a scholarly edition of Two Alcuin Letter-Books.[1][9]", for instance, footnote 1 is used as the source of information for the sentence, and 9 to point to the bibliographic information of Two Alcuin Letter-Books. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I left this message after trying to find the first citation for this: "An anonymous reviewer of the book termed it "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English", and declared that "henceforth every discussion of the poem and its period will begin with reference to this volume."" ;-) (Yes, I realize that it was only a click away on desktop, but it's still a strange organizational strategy to me.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this correct?


Same url, both OEN17_1.pdf?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that, . Fixed (this is the correct URL for the Fall 1984 issue). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical
This is nonsensical: Chase penned Two Alcuin Letter-Books—a scholarly collection of twenty-four letters by the eighth-century scholar Alcuin.

Who wrote the letters? Alcuin or Chase? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)