Talk:Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh

A fact from Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh, an account of the wars of Thomond in 13th-century Ireland, is noted for both historical accuracy and vivid descriptions of banshees?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cathreim Thoirdhealbhaigh.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Credit the author

About the wikisource link above, with the "also in google books" remark: I don't understand how to get to the Jordan article from your google books footnote. That may be my stupidity. But that's not a quality unique to me, so I recommend linking to the more convenient Wikisource version, which everybody can find. It's admittedly a slightly older edition of DNB, but I'd be surprised if it's any different. In any case, I definitely think you want to credit the author (Norman Moore) in your footnote, not the editor (Sidney Lee). As is, you don't even mention Moore. Hardly fair! Bishonen | talk 11:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unsurprisingly, that particular footnote was Drmies's doing, not mine; I'll take a closer look at it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that should do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 35. I don't want to carp (ha!), but where does 1909 come from? The page in Wikisource says 1885—1900. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Google Books entry says that the thing was published in 1909. Probably from the various errata and things that were published after 1900, or maybe the Google Books is based off of a reprint done in 1909 or something. I'll change it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]