Talk:List of works by Bede

Using Giles for work descriptions
Notes on which works I have gone through Giles for.
 * Commentary on Genesis
 * De tabernaculo
 * Commentary on Samuel
 * Commentary on Mark
 * Commentary on Luke
 * Life of St Cuthbert (metrical)
 * Letter to Plegwin
 * Letters to Acca
 * Letter to Helmwald
 * Letter to Wicthede
 * Letter to Albinus
 * Letter to Egbert

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

PASE additional work names
PASE has some additional works that it distinguishes from the works they are embedded in or attached to. (Giles does this too with introductory letters.) After I've gone through the table I need to go back through PASE and understand each item; it may need to be mentioned in the relevant work section. It might also be good to have a separate section that covers this sort of work. Here are the PASE chapter headings that don't immediately seem to correspond with what's in the article now.
 * Bede.AnnLib (Calendar)
 * Bede.CapLect (Chapter Headings)
 * Bede.CapLectIsDnProph (Chapter Headings of Isaiah, Daniel, the Twelve Prophets and Part of Jeremiah drawn from the Treatise of the Blessed Jerome)
 * Higham lists this too; I'd like to know just what this is. Higham doesn't give an edition directly; he gives a reference to an article: "see P. Meyvaert, 'Bede's Capitula lectionum for the Old and New Testament', Revue Bénédictine 105 (1995) 348–380, partic. 362–3".  Also under "Also, summaries of lessons..." Higham refers to the same article.
 * Bede.CarmPs (Metrical Version of Psalm 112)
 * Bede.ChronMaior (The Greater Chronicles, or Concerning the Six Ages of the World together with the Seventh and Eighth Age)
 * Bede.Epig (Book of Epigrams)
 * Bede.NomRegLocAct (Names of the Regions and Places in the Acts of the Apostles)
 * Bede.OpusQuaest (On Eight Questions)
 * Bede.OratDeum (Prayer to God)
 * Bede.RatBissex (Concerning the Course of the Sun through the Months and the Signs: How the Leap-year Day is completed in its Fourth Year)
 * Bede.SolilPs (Soliloquy on Psalm 41; On Psalm 83)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge biblio
Just a note to remind myself that the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature has a fairly thorough list of editions that should be looked at and possibly integrated into this article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

List of works by Bede → Bede bibliography – This is an author bibliography (works by Bede). As such the name change is to bring consistency to author bibliography titles per advice in WikiProject Bibliographies and per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA policy of which Consistency is one. Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the current title is a better choice; "bibliography" reads very oddly for a medieval author like Bede, since what he wrote and the books listed are two different things -- the edited texts, with annotations and commentary, are what's listed. I wasn't aware that there had been a consensus for this rename -- this article was moved unilaterally once before and the move was reversed, partly because of this evidence of a lack of consensus on the standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the bilbiographic renamings currently going on are not distinguishing works by a person with works about a person. This doesn't matter when it's not a person (say geology), but when it is a person, we need to distinguish works by person A with works about person A. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The discussion referenced by Mike Christie above occured in 2009.  Since then, significant work has been done on WP:TITLE to include a lot of discussion about WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA and changes to the policy were made this year.  The criteria of Consistency is policy and pretty clear.  Our titles should be consistent across articles of a similar nature.  There are currently 245 author bibliographies in Category:Bibliographies by author.  94% of those articles are entitled author bibliography.  It seems to me that our Consistency policy should apply to this article as well.  A list of works by an author is a bibliography by any other name.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment just because our current practice is substandard in distinguishing one type of biblio from the other (bibio of author X's works -vs- biblio of works about person X) does not mean we should propagate such a confusing syntax. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I notice at WT:WikiProject Bibliographies that there is controversy over a mass rename of biblio/list of works articles, so the consistency claimed appears to be a newly created consistency based on a new project's recent guideline. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note the that mass renaming alluded to above was done by User:Curb Chain unilaterally, and without any association with the WikiProject Bibliographies. Please read ANI discussions  and .  Additionally, User:70.24.248.23 has conveinently ignored the fact that Consistency is one of the five WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA contained in our titling policy. Within the Category:Bibliographies by author there are 244 entries.  232 of those entries ~(95%) are entitled Author bibiliography. Our WP:TITLE consistency policy reads: •Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.  The bibliography project merely points out this consistency policy for author bibliographies, it doesn't and hasn't imposed it as a newly created consistency as 70.24.248.23 alludes to above. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dating
Currently the article reads
 * ...edited by Franciscus Jametius, printed at Paris in three volumes in 1544, other works being available in separate editions.[89]...

but the linked volumes are clearly dated 1545 and usually discussed as published in that year. Is there some reason to believe the printing was mistaken? If so, there should be a note about it. — Llywelyn II   18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was probably the one who wrote that, a long time ago, but I'm afraid I have no memory of why. Feel free to change it.  Perhaps I was looking at a source that gave that date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)