Talk:Carpet page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

Scope of term[edit]

Sorry if my editing is generating some frustration. I understand that the term "carpet page" has its origin as a description of a particular type of page in Insular illuminated manuscripts. But both calligraphers and scholars quickly expanded the term to include much more, as can be seen here [1]. The page that is described there is from the first illuminated bible produced in many years, and it contains decorative pattern and lettering that is integrated in a decorative way.

The use of the term carpet page seems to be rather recent and a Google book search, that allows only books in the public domain, comes up with nothing. It would be interesting to know who first used the term. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That reference demonstrates nothing, certainly not that "both calligraphers and scholars quickly expanded the term to include much more". As you point out, no one has produced an illuminated bible for centuries, and the meaning of the term in art history is very clear. I can't imagine why you say there are no Google hits as google books produces 672 and google scholar produces 246. These go back to the 1960s, before which digitization tends to give out until you get to 19th century PD stuff. The clear distinction between carpet pages and heavily decorated initial pages remains exactly the same throughout. If you had more convincing references that this term is widely used by calligraphers etc in a different way in relation to modern work, that would need to be a different section. The one you cite first of all appears to be at least partly printed, per their description, and the text recognises that the meaning of the term here is individual. I think to mention this individual usage would breach WP:UNDUE, unless you can produce evidence of more widespread use of the term in this way. None of the 3 refs you added yourself support it. You can see, by the way, the clear distinction between carpet pages and incipit pages in another book by Calkins, available online here. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And please add captions to the rest of the gallery images. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Try not to sound like a complete fool. I wrote a Google book search, that allows only books in the public domain, comes up with nothing. I did not write that there no hits. The hits are all for carpets (as floor coverings) near mentions of page (boys), so there was, in fact, nothing. There was, as far as can be found from a Google book search that allows only public domain books, nothing published about manuscript carpet pages going back over 70 years. Do you understand?
The link you supplied does not support your view of the term, but I will not bother to argue with you about it because it is clear that you do not intend to expand your present POV. It is not worth the investment of my time to argue with you about it. That's ok, and I have better things to do with my time than edit WP. I have been a professional calligrapher and illuminator for over 25 years and I understand how the terminology of the field is used. So to sum it up, as far as I am concerned, you can take this article and shove it. You are too dumb to work with, and too inclined to edit war. Do you understand? 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear, dear! In fact it is not true at all that a Google book search, ... allows only books in the public domain. Books are either PD (very old) or those in copyright that the publishers have allowed all or part of the text to be added. Since the vast majority of the hits on the searches linked above clearly deal with exactly this subject, I'm left puzzled as to what you're looking at. I don't see any pageboys at all! All very odd. Did you do a search that only allowed PD books (a search option)? Why on earth would you do such a thing? It is guaranteed to produce almost no results on any topic. Do you understand?Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)