Talk:Vellum

Merge

Wouldn't it make sense to merge Vellum and Vellum parchment? Is there any reason for a disambiguation page, given that the two meanings listed are closely related? Wmahan 03:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've merged them. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article. Vellum is a bit more complicated. Parchment is not vellum ... at times pieces of parchment would be sewn onto vellum for illustrative purposes, or maybe to cover a hole in the vellum produced by the stretching process (at times the scribe would even write around the wholes). This needs more work and as such should not be listed.

from the latin

the page for parchment says that vellum is derived from the latin for "calf," but here it gives the derivation from the latin for "pelt."

Velius is Latin for pelt, but my (offline) etymological resources (primarily Chambers Dictionary of Etymology) state that Vellum derives from Middle French velin, from Old French vel or veel, for calf. In English, it first appears in print as velym about 1430, thence to velum by 1499, and finally to vellum in 1636. The Online Etymological Dictionary agrees with the link to velin, though it indicates that velin is Old French, not Middle French.

And my copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with Middle French Velin, so I am changing the article. --Intelligence3 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins

The first paragraph states that vellum was originally made from pig skin. The second paragraph states that it was originally made from calf skin. Obviously these are at odds. I have had difficulty locating an online source for either. Despite etymological roots that may tie to calf, obviously it could have been originally made from swine before calves became more common for the purpose, the name perhaps having come later.

it's hard to imagine there were enough calves around to supply the medieval demand - I think sheep & doubtless pigs also got involved. I think early Irish vellum (Book of Kells etc was from lambs, although i don't think the article says so Johnbod 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Torah scrolls

The article states without reference that vellum made from unborn calf skin is "still the preferred type for Torah scrolls today." I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any knowledge of Kosher law, but it struck me as a possible misconception. I've found no sources to back up the claim; rather, most sources seem only to indicate which part of the calf's skin is preferable. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Dmagus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a rabbi explaining this on TV recently. Why a possible misconception? Johnbod 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm actually updating the article on scrolls, and so will sync it with this article. This article is wrong in the sense that klaf (Hebrew) was the original use of velum or parchment for writing, and any kosher animal's skin can be used, but obviously must be thin enough to enable the scroll to be rolled. The preferred skin is that of deer, and for this reason those made in Iraq were highly prized in the ancient and medieval times right up to the 18th century, often imported into Europe, particularly Germany.--Mrg3105 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"additional step"

The sentence "Large paper drawings require an additional step (tracing paper amenable to letting light pass through it, and hence is more error prone)" appears to be an unfinished thought. It is unclear what additional step the author was referring to, and what the connection between light passing through and errors is.

Lriley47 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Paper vellum

It is rather unfortunate and unsurprising that only the obscure American drawing sizes are seen as worth mentioning. Most of the world uses ISO-sizes (A0, A1, A2 etc). 213.243.170.211 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Petri

The paper sizes are not completely identified. These are the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Sizes, and are not the only sizes used in the United States. Architectural paper sizes, which are slightly larger, are also used. Lriley47 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An entry on vellum seems like a completely non-obvious and inappropriate place for a discussion of paper sizes or VLSI technologies. This discussion should be replaced with appropriate references to other entries (in the case of paper sizes, incorporating the ISO size comment above), or omitted entirely (in the case of VLSI). Rschnitz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just chopped out that VLSI essay, along with the discussion of ANSI paper sizes. The remaining paragraph is still far from optimal: inaccurate, opaque, and unsupported by references. "Scaling a drawing," or measuring dimensions from the lines on it, was considered a poor practice exactly because of paper's lack of dimensional stability. Photo-reproduction applications requiring stability, such as circuit layout, were more likely to use Mylar or Rubylith than paper vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Material and manufacture

This section of the article leads off with the sentence: "There is some confusion about the relationship between the words vellum and parchment." It then goes on to describe vellum in detail, but completely neglects to clarify the confusion between vellum and parchment. If no clarification is to be offered, shouldn't this sentence be removed? Or, more properly, shouldn't some clarification be given? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems clear that there is a consistent distinction, & if so, what it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Separed the parchmen Vellum of the paper vellum

I suggested, what the paper (fay from bois or chiffon) vellum, from the vellum el peau of baby-cow deadborn, whos is a sort of parchment.

--Jean-François Clet (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

er, sorry? Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthropodermic bibliopegy

Regarding this diff: See here pages 96 and 99, where human skin is said to resemble pigskin, hardly to be mistaken for vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking it to the talk page

I don't really remember why I was supposed to take it here, but am supposed to. Can someone help me out?VampireDoctor (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me making that recommendation. It may not have been your intent, but this edit of yours brought back a wad of stuff about VLSI semiconductor design that really has no place in this article. See previous discussion of that issue. In addition, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for any statements added to the encyclopedia. While there may have been a few documents written on pieces of human skin somewhere, sometime, that has to amount to a tiny fraction of all the vellum ever used throughout history. Only guessing, but I bet it amounted to much much much less than one per cent of all vellum documents ever written. That kind of "gee whiz" minutiae doesn't really belong in the top section of an encyclopedia article.

Not so far down in the article there is mention of "other animals, including deer, donkey, horse, camel and even man" with a citation-needed tag. If you have a reliable source to cite, that seems like the perfect place for it. If you need help formatting the reference, there are plenty of folks around, myself included, to step in and help fix it up. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bill, I agree with the doctor, you just removed far too much there. That section on engineering use of vellum paper was informative and useful, and since this article covers both skin vellum and vellum paper, this is where it belongs too.--Svartalf (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to some reliably sourced text coming back regarding the engineering use of vellum paper, but too much of what was there was an inaccurate unsourced essay about CAD and VLSI, looking a lot like original research. This is not the place for that __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

About the only "informative and useful" part of the removed content was a table of ANSI paper sizes. The section now has a link to a less amateurish presentation of that information. Furthermore, the contributor in question has been indefinitely blocked as a racist vandal and block-evading sockpuppet, so good faith cannot be assumed here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

We have a picture which says this is a vellum document of the seventeenth century. Problem is, the EXACT SAME ILLUSTRATION is also used in the article on parchment, saying, this is a parchment document of the seventeenth century. Is it one or t'other? Can anyone tell?140.161.86.159 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)