Talk:Illuminated manuscript

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 

Names for new sub-categories[edit]

Category:Manuscript illuminators - Artists, including schools & the society
Category:Illuminated combat treatises / manuals - for the Fechtbucher, or illustrated, if we must!
Category:Types of illuminated manuscript - for Gospel book article etc, OR
Book-types often illuminated - perhaps clearer, OR "Manuscript types" ...
Category:Illuminated manuscript traditions OR
[[:Category:I..M.. styles / national schools - I don't know about this one. Styles implies chronology rather than geography. Insular art should perhaps be here, or insular MS later, so "national" is difficult - also for Fractur etc.
Category:Iconography of illuminated manuscripts - I prefer to motifs, personally
Category:Illuminated manuscript production - or something, for Turnsole, parchment & vellum, which could usefully be included.
I'm tempted to include the prayer-books with the liturgical MS, especially as the Vatican Croatian Prayer Book would appear to be both.
Any thoughts or comments? Johnbod 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually what I have done so far is split the "Miniature painters" cat into: Category:Portrait miniaturists and Category:Manuscript illuminators. I have left the Persian artists in the old category for now. I wonder if they should stay seperate, or go as a sub-cat on this side, or what? Johnbod 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My thought is that you may be overdoing it. These seem quite a lot of categories. If you cannot come up with, say, a couple dozen articles for each individual category, it may be worthwhile to use broader categories instead, otherwise they won't be of any help for users in finding articles. >Radiant< 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well they are three pretty different groups of people, and their works are in very widely separated categories. There are currently 21 portrait artists, 11 illuminators, and three Persians - all capable of plenty of expansion, especially the last two. Or were you talking about the scheme in general? I don't quite follow your logic on users finding articles. We started this process because we had over 100 articles in the main category, very many of which gave no indication in their titles as to what they were about, unless you already knew what, for example Book of Armagh, Codex Trivulzianus or MS 862 were about. Now they are sorted by subject matter, which is often a broad chronological sorting as well. There has been discussion above, but my preference has been to use where possible sub-categories off the main category, so people don't have to hunt around the tree too much. At the moment I think we are broadly agreed not to categorise groups of fewer than about 6 articles, with exceptions like Jewish manuscripts (4) and maybe the Persian group (currently only 3) which seem to demand this. All these groups are capable of great expansion, and could reach 24 in time (or quickly if an editor with an interest appeared). Some existing categories will not be needed at the end of the process. Johnbod 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CfD[edit]

Editors may be interested in this CfD. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. The two voters so far don't like the idea of having (miscellaneous) in the title, so I tried to explain why, and asked them to comment on where the other subcats dealing with Christian manuscripts should go. I feel I didn't exactly get the point across, so please lend a hand, and comment on the CfD. Thanks.-Andrew c 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have emptied Category:Hebrew illuminated manuscripts, now in Category:Jewish illuminated manuscripts, and Category:Miniature painters, now in Category:Portrait miniaturists, Category:Manuscript illuminators (with Persian sub-cat). After 4 days or so I propose to do a speedy delete, which you can do with empty cats, unless anyone objects. Johnbod 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for emptying the cats. We could have proposed a CfD rename on the Hebrew/Jewish category and let a bot do the hard work. Anyway, I came across something that may interest those who watch this page. While this may be a case for speedy, an almost identical recreated cat showed up a day after the previous CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 14#Category:Rare bibles.-Andrew c 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There were only 4 in the jewish cat. I decided after Psalters it's easier to empty & get that deleted than rename in most cases (not the J-C I agree). Johnbod 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that went well! What do we do now? I have speedied the Hebrew & miniature painter cats as above, and also nominated for renaming cats "Fechtbücher" and "Illustrated manuscripts" here [1] and one below. As discussed above. Johnbod 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the deletion review for Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts though I'm confused exactly where that cat stands now. Any ideas? What do we do from here? -Andrew c 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. we could resubmit, offering a clear choice between "J-C IM"s on one arrangement scheme, or "General Xtian IM"s on the other (which I think has a better chance as not being self-referential. But in the light of recent debates (I've been getting involved in CfD generally also), I think that might be too complex a choice. You need to provide a clear choice & rationale, or you get drive-by bright ideas. Johnbod 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Preservation of Illuminated Manuscripts[edit]

There now exists an article on the Preservation_of_Illuminated_Manuscripts. I originally proposed that this article be merged into Illuminated manuscripts, but at present I think it is too large for that. What about writing one paragraph that is a sort of sum-up of the preservation article, and posting that in the main article, with one of those "Main article:Preservation of Illuminated Manuscripts" links at the top?Dr bab 09:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

New rewrite[edit]

I am one who recreates medieval illuminations using authentic techniques and materials. Over the last few years I have participated in a discussion list where many useful bits of information have been shared. I would like to organize this information so that it can be accessed by others interested in this art form. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this idea and see how and where it might intersect with the current historical review of Illuminated Manuscripts. For instance, the techniques section might be a very good jumping point into the material I have. I am not sure if perhaps the information I have might be better linked into the WikiHow. I also wonder what the policy is about listing where you can obtain materials, or if reprinting the various instructions for making ink might be considered a recipe which is discouraged in the Wiki guidelines.

Is it possible to talk to you about how to best bring the information I have into the Wiki?

Many Thanks!--Tevenete (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this a new section as the old one has not been added to since 2005. Descriptions of techniques that are not WP:COPYVIO are welcome, but avoid a how-to approach, including recipes. Information referenced to WP:RS is greatly preferred - not much here is referenced at the moment, reflecting older attitudes. Information about suppliers is unlikely to be appropriate. Why not try adding some and informally asking for comment? Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will run the idea by the scribal list to obtain approval for the idea and then begin with a few edits and subpages to see if the content is deemed appropriate. One question: Is it approved to link between the WikiPedia and the WikiHow? Thank you again. --Tevenete (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest, but I don't see why not. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed as "spam"[edit]

The following external link:

The Manuscript Studies and Palaeography Collection at Senate House Library, University of London

Was deleted as "spam"!--Wetman (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it set off my spam radar. User:Palaeography Room, the user adding the link, was a new user whose only contribs were adding this link to several articles with no edit summary, always listing them at the top of the list, and originally calling this site "the best." This made it look a lot like advertising. If you feel this link is appropriate, by all means add it, but the way User:Palaeography Room did it made it look like spam. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
COI or not, the site is useful, though the "online resources" page would be the best to link to for our editors. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Student class project?[edit]

This, and a number of related pages - Girdle book, Manuscript, Historiated initial, & perhaps others - have been heavily edited in the last few days by a number of new editors, in what looks to me like a class project. Is this the case? Has the project been registered at Wikipedia:School and university projects? I can't see it. Some changes, like those at Girdle book, are net improvements that just need some tidying, but the ones here just have too much waffle and inaccuracy, though certainly some text is worth salvaging. It might be better for students to work initially in a sandbox, and discuss a draft on talk before making major changes, especially to the key article here. Can someone involved explain the situartion here please? Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality[edit]

Can someone who knows how, add a 'not meet quality standards' to this article, please? This page used to be better - it is of VERY variable quality at present, and taken in general it is way below the standard of wikipedia. It sadly perpetuates a lot of outdated and inaccurate information. I wish I had time to fix it, but it would be a big job. I agree that it reads like a school project at present —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.175.142 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed gallery flag[edit]

I have removed the gallery cleanup flag as this ariticle clearly falls into the category of subjects which cannot be adequately described without the use of a gallery of images, a stated exception to the policy.--Scorpion451 rant 14:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it again. The policy also says that the gallery shouldn't be an indiscriminate collection of images, which this gallery is. A gallery should have a theme and some sort of organization -- it's not enough to say that images help explain the subject (which these do). Is there some way to organize these images more coherently? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
For example, looking at the article and the images on Commons, is there a way of organizing the gallery along the lines of the various styles/types of the subject? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
How on earth do you know it is "indiscriminate"? The gallery is short, given the breadth of the subject, well-captioned, and illustrates a wide variety of just the "styles and types" you are asking for. There is nothing in the policy about "a theme and some sort of organization". I will remove the tag again. Neither article nor images are optimal here, in fact the text sections need more images, but the gallery is the least of the problems and the tag is unwarranted. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you could calm down somewhat, and assume others are capable of understanding what is in the gallery as well as you do, even if we have different opinions. The fact that the gallery isn't great, but other parts of the article are worse, as you suggest, doesn't mean that there isn't an issue here. The policy does reference a gallery having a theme. And does say that a gallery should not consist of random and repetitive images, which is the case here, regardless of the fact that they have captions. Right now, this gallery is the equivalent of a trivia section - images just inserted into the gallery becase no one has really given much thought how best to orgnaize them. There are a lot of images on the Commons, and I suspect we could come up with something quite good.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA - now there's a policy for you. Feel free to improve the gallery, or the article, but also remove the tag, which does not say "this gallery needs improving", but "this gallery needs removing". In fact the tag wording I think has not been updated to reflect the new policy, and it should be. I'm afraid you do need to read the policy again, as I have just done, to see where "theme" occurs and how it is used. How are the images repetitive? There are two Armenian ones, but otherwise they are pretty varied. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The tag, in fact, does say, improve the gallery. So I am not sure what you mean by the first part of you comment. And I have read the policy, and my comments are consistent with it. In fact, I wrote that part of the policy, as you'll recall. Perhaps if you explained what you mean, rather than keep telling me to read the policy (twice now), we'd be further along. As for repetitive, we have two sets of images of the same subject, with no real evident rationale for it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean? Be specific please. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The gallery is essential per WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing having a gallery.Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If you find a relevant image in commons that relates to the text then add the image; if it replaces another image that does not reflect the text or a subject in the article - so much the better...Modernist (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Drafting out[edit]

Some manuscripts would be direct copies of previous versions - so once 'the scribe' had learnt the particular hand and size it could be copied readily. But - what were the previous processes in setting up 'new texts' - wax tablets, paper etc? At what point in 'the process of the manuscript being created' was the vellum/parchment prepared? (ie would the manuscript workshop have a certain amount of vellum/parchment to hand, or would it be bought as and when the manuscript was commissioned?) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Complicated (and a question for illuminated manuscript rather than here. The various components would all be copied, except perhaps for the personalized calendar, for which notes were presumably made on bits of parchment, or possibly wax. Paper was only available in northern Europe pretty late. Prepared vellum (perhaps bought in, was cut to size & normally the scribe wrote the text first, leaving spaces for the agreed programme of illustration, which might be done in a different place. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
'Somebody commissions a new text' - so how would the scribe set about the drafting out/setting up the layout? (A general question - not just in terms of the Voynich Manuscript.

What was the cross link you meant? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)