This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Given that the source for the "convention" is 60 years old, that the book hasn't been updated in 40 years, that it is entirely likely that more modern translations have come out (and the fact that one of the translators, W. F. Albright, has seen his methods discredited in the intervening years), it would seem highly likely that this "convention" no longer continues.
And the cite refers to a specific source - unless the source was changed (for which no claim appears to have been made), the present tense is fine. Collect (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, there was no convention for updating outdated information contained in 60yo book reviews, even if the author of the review was still alive to do so. HrafnTalkStalk(P)15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. (i) It does not reference the numbered "texts within this volume". (ii) Counterexamples such as this would indicate that the convention (even to the extent of giving the contracted title) is by no means universal. HrafnTalkStalk(P)16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn above raised the question of whether the convention was "universal", and that's what I was referring to. I do know what I'm talking about, unlike you who seem to think that ANET is a "journal". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I emended the reference to "work." Seeing a large number of "volumes" made me think that they were issued in some sort of organized sequence, and I noted the use of "Journal" in the prior sentence, making that error. OTOH, you should read AGF and NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there is only a single volume, and there are many translated texts within this single volume, and it is these texts that are numbered. I'm altering the article to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk(P)04:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]