Talk:Books of Chronicles

message: Identified as vandalism? That was a little harsh.As I mentioned in the edit summary, throughout the article, Chronicles is repeatedly referred to in the singular, thus (also mentioned in the edit summary) there is probably a need to discuss the plural vs singular question in Talk (I guess this thread will do). If we change the (grammatical) number in the lede, we would need to go through the entire article and change the number throughout. This (reading throughout the article) being needed has been demonstrated by both your initial edit, changing that lede sentence, as well as your revert to my edit (identified as vandalism??? that still stings). In both cases, you changed "it" to "they" but kept the verb "appears" in singular form (id est "they appears" — an ungrammatical construction). Even further, with both that first edit and with all your subsequent revert and edits, you left the word "book" — in the very same sentence — in the singular. Thus, a simple "it"»"they" mass change would not be sufficient. Thus, part of the reason why I edited it back after your initial edit, and part of the reason for the edit summary I gave for it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "vandalism" revert was a totally accidental application of Twinkle's rollback function; I reverted my own rollback and did it manually to make that clear. I never thought your edit was any type of vandalism whatsoever, so let me offer you my apologies for that. My preferred solution would be to refer to Chronicles in the singular throughout the article, if possible. I propose we make those changes to the article and then move to Book of Chronicles rather than the current title. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Book of Chronicles" would work well, I would support that. The article already mentions that it is found in both a single book form (notably among Jewish versions) and as a double book form (with Christian versions, but not always), so changing the body of the article wouldn't be much of an issue. However, this would also suggest that Books of Samuel and Books of Kings may want to do likewise; I notice the use of singular in those articles, as well, and are found in single book forms. Each of those, as well as this one, would each need some kind of consensus on a move (possibly not an easy thing, some folks are passionate about the form they grew up with). :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Samuel and Kings would certainly need to be moved as well, if we establish a precedent here. If it's an issue of whether the singular (one-book) or plural (two-book) form is used most often, the standard Christian two-book division probably wins out there. However, as far as I know, the practice of dividing them into two books each originated with the LXX, so historically, the one-book form is more true to how the text originated. I'll have to do some reading on titling procedures in cases like this. If you're open to getting one or more move discussions rolling, don't feel you have to wait for me. :) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I am in favor of the singular. If a book is too large and we have to divide it into two parts, these are called "Title" part 1 and "Title" part 2. So the title is still "Title". Debresser (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Support merge move though it probably should have been done through WP:RM. Book of Kings needs to be moved to Book of Kings (disambiguation). But the singular designation is the most common approach in scholarship and few people would say "Books of Samuel" anyway - "1 and 2 Samuel" is more common. StAnselm (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For Evan2008 or Imeriki al-Shimoni. Please continue, which English language Bible/Tanakh translations/versions have only 1 book of Chronicles? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evanh2008 Revert - Singular and Plural 

message: Can anyone please revise the last three sentences of the section ORIGINS, because the logic does not make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.197.47 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  revision needed 

message: I notice that an IP editor has changed the occurrences of "BCE" to "BC". Now, that's fair enough, because the article originally had "BC" - see WP:ERA. Looking through the edit history, it's not really anyone's fault - content was added with "BCE", and then the BCs were changed to make the article consistent. But it means we should discuss it here in order to get consensus. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC or BCE 

message: Under Composition > Sources, it says: 'There is also the question of whether the author of Chronicles used sources other than those found in the Bible: if such sources existed, it would bolster the Bible's case to be regarded as a reliable history.'
This sounds like opinion rather than fact, and it doesn't logically follow. If two people wrote synopses of a Harry Potter book, it wouldn't make it more likely that Harry Potter is a factual story, merely that two people had read the same text.--Jcvamp (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement 

message: @Zhomron Where is that policy? What's another page that uses this? GordonGlottal (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  yY