Talk:Manuscript culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Manuscript culture was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 21, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

In addition to being an article for wikipedia; I have made this for a history class as well. Its part of a project where we research all this information and post it to wikipedia in the wiki format, fully referenced. The goal is that the given topic be one of the best places on the web to start researching the particular topic. So help in formatting and clarification within the article to improve the quality would be appreciated, and whatever information you might know which can be cited is welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LSpinks (talkcontribs).

It's looking pretty good, but it needs a great deal more wikilinks. --Eyrian 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been linking what i think i can/should, but if you or anyone else sees something that can be added, I cerntainly wont mind. This is due to be graded this thursday morning may 3 at 8:30, so i will appreciate all the help I can get to make the end result better. LSpinks 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the transition image to various communication pages Maiku 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (Brad)

Hi, I'm the other student working on the Late Manuscript Culture portion. I still need to do a great deal of work to my part, which should be going down over the course of the night, but I wanted to go ahead and add what I have to the main page.- Benton Hurley

To the gentleman who edited my wiki links, I would very much like a justification for this. I am working on this article in conjunciton with LSpinks for the aforementioned class, and I can see no rational reason for making this page less functional.

Regards, Benton Hurley/Giruben

-Additionally, your justification for changing manuscripts may have merit, but why remove all of my unique wiki links? These took a decent amount of time to create, and most were unique. I included multiple links to manuscripts believing that, with the length of this article, many users would skip directly to this section and not want to skip back to the top of the page in order to click the link. Regardless, the deletion of my links to Devotio Moderna, etc. was simply uncalled for. Giruben 07:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just a quick note... It's rather difficult to find images that don't have strict copyright use pertaining to late manuscript culture. If anyone has access to these, post them by all means, but I've been relegated to linking to images. Giruben

Can someone cure this sentence?[edit]

I really have no idea what the following sentence is trying to convey: "Many scholars of print culture, as well as classicists, have argued that inconsistencies among manuscripts due to the blind copying of texts and a static manuscript culture that (specifically medieval manuscript culture) existed during the rise of the printing press."

If somebody knows what the information that is intended to be expressed is, please explain here on the talk page or rephrase in the article. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed; this actually arose because of someone reverting the article while I was working on it originally, and I forgot to clean up this section. Feel free to ask for any additional clarification. - giruben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giruben (talkcontribs) 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to bring this article up to GA standards[edit]

Well, I've been spending some time with this article, trying to bring it closer to GA standards. This is an interesting topic, and the article is filled with good references and information. Unfortunately, it read too much like the history paper that it started as, and did not read like an encyclopedia article. I've edited much of the intro and the first few sections, adjusted formating issues, and fixed punctuation, trying to bring it up to GA standards - but there's still a long way to go. I'm going to have to move on from my rescue effort, and hope that someone else will pick up where I left off. Again, the most important things - the information and the references - are in place, but the writing style needs substantial upgrading. Good luck! NorCalHistory (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article needs more work to make it NPOV, particularly the section "Popular assumptions and historical revision." (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

This is a very interesting and informative article, and there are many things I like about it. I very much wish that I could have listed it as a GA immediately, but unfortunately I can't, as looking at from the perspective of the good article criteria there are several problems that need to be addressed.

The most obvious is the quality of the prose. A few examples picked almost at random:

  • "The bookseller was free to produce and sell books, illuminate, or write for anyone they pleased ..". The booksellers were free ..."?
  • "This exemption empowered the universities all over France over the booksellers .." I think I understand what this means, but it's very awkwardly written.
  • "In 13th century, Paris was the first place to have large commercial trade of manuscripts ...". In the 13th century ...", or "In 13th-century Paris ..."? As it stands, it's a barbarism.
  • "... at the time of the printing presses' invention ...". Basic grammar error, confusing the plural with the possessive.
  • "The Book of Hours had been the most commonly produced manuscript from the 1450's onward ..". Similar, another grocer's apostrophe.
  • "She didn't describe Italian humanists ..." Too informal for an encylopedia article. "She did not ...".
  • Is it "Manuscript Culture" or "manuscript culture"? Pick one and stick to it.

As I said, those were just some examples, by no means a complete catalogue. I also have reservations about the article being structured around just two sections. I really don't think that does the subject justice, particularly in the second, very large, Late Manuscript Culture section. It almost looks as if there's been two separate articles fused together. Sticking to a timeline isn't always the best way to deal with a chronology. Why not follow themes instead?

In summary, although I do think that there's a great deal of work needed to be done on this article, and I'm by no means certain that it can all be done within the time allowed, I have nevertheless put this article on hold for 7 days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a more explict statement, right at the beginning, of exactly what the phrase 'manuscript culture' refers to and in what contexts it is used. Try to come at it from the perspective a reader that is totally new to this subject. ike9898 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A very good point. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As the above issues remain unaddressed, this article has not been listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the student who created the majority of this page (the Late Manuscript Culture section), and unfortunately I did not have the time to bring it up to GA standards, though I plan on doing so when I get a chance (most likely summer break). With that in mind, I have a brief question, if annyone would care to address it. A friend wrote the beginning section (which is the reason that the writing styles and format differ so greatly), and I am thinking that perhaps this article should be divided into four or five sections, based on chronology. Essentially, the first section would be scrapped and its contents placed into these various other sections. I've done a great deal of reading since, and feel that that it's not so much a problem of the latter section being too detailed, as the first lacking a great deal of historical context and depth.

I also am considering a section (possibly a few paragraphs) detailing what, precisely, constitutes mansucript culture. However, is it best to keep it in its own context, or also bring in the definition of print culture and writing culture as it existed before the invention of the codex?

Finally, I am considering a final section explaining the ways in which the advent of hypertext and web browsers has restored certain elements of manuscript culture to our experience of text, but am unsure as to whether that belongs in this article. Any thoughts on these issues from those more experienced with wikipedia than myself are greatly appreciated; indeed, the fact that it reads too much like a term paper is perhaps because writing term papers occupies the vast majority of my time, and wikipedia is merely a hobby. -- (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is an old question, but it is generally an issue of verifiability. Claims made by the article must be verifiable, and must avoid Original Research whenever possible. As an outsider, the first thing that struct me in reading the article was the lack of clarification as to precisely what entity defined Manuscript culture as a concrete term. With no citations in the lead section, it is entirely possible that the term is something coined by the original wikipedia editor who authored the article, and it exists only as an excuse to allow the editor to group together some unique categorization of history. I doubt this is the case, but I can't prove it without moving on to Google and checking to see just what sources are using the term "Manuscript culture" and how it is being used.
Paragraphs detailing what constitutes manuscript culture sound very beneficial, but the bounds put forth should be originated by some independent published author.
Details of the relationship between hypertext, web browsers, and manuscript culture may be appropriate, but only so long as they are relaying published content that explicitly discusses these new technologies in terms of "Manuscript culture". Publications discussing the technologies in a way that merely has a heck of a lot in common with the aspects of manuscript culture are insufficient. Encyclopedia are not the place for putting pieces together; they are instead the place for documenting the connections made by others. -Verdatum (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the student who initially created this page(as part of a collaboration), and to answer simply, request the books listed as references. You obviously did no research (or close reading), as several articles have "manuscript culture" in the titles and were written nearly 20 years ago. Nevertheless, it's a term that originated in the 70's in academic journals that attempted to reassess history using technological progress as a lense in light of electronic media. It is commonplace, I did not create it, and I assure you it was thrust upon me by the requirements of a history BA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2011 (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) 07:52, 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) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparition11 apparently remained unconvinced of the value of The Manuscript Studies and Palaeography Collection at Senate House Library, University of London, because it set off his "spam radar". At any rate he made no effort to correct what some might take for a blunder. The link remains at History of the book— not then, I imagine, a subject on his "radar". Just as well... --Wetman (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting, but when the spam account inserted it to History of the book, I removed it there as well [1]. When a good faith account re-inserted it, I left it be. When a link is added to many different articles, especially when it claims to be "the best", it looks like WP:LINKSPAM. The "spam radar" is as mentioned on WP:SPAMMER, #5, which 3 of the 4 points were done during the initial insertion of the link. I stand by actions (even if they were 8 months ago), and I fail to understand how I "made no effort to correct what some might take for a blunder". Do you think I should have reinserted the link into every page that it was originally inserted? I responded to all of your comments about it on all of the talk pages that you posted it on. I did not revert and run, I stayed to explain my actions. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagram wording[edit]

"Orality"? There's a word you don't hear every day.

Joke aside, what about something a little more familiar such as "spoken word" or "oral tradition"? Piano non troppo (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)