Talk:Catalogue raisonné
![]() | Visual arts Start‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Books Start‑class | ||||||
|
Chagall "Expert Advice" Link
Per the editors (129.184.84.10 and 129.184.84.11) interested in having the Chagall link included, it is a commercial site that provides no publicly accessible information and should not be included in the article. Please review the Wikipedia guide for external link spamming: WP:LINKSPAM. (Migozared 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
Cannot access Duke University library web site
Most of us will have unauthorized IP addresses and cannot access the article st Duke University Library. Should be removed. --User:Brenont 03:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. But here's the Archive.org link to what was on the page (I can't find any of the Duke library's art search guides on their new site): http://web.archive.org/web/20070228004716/http://www.lib.duke.edu/lilly/artsearch/guides/discussion+guides/catraisonne.htm
- It's pretty noticable that most of the article here is lifted from there. Time for a rewrite? -Migozared 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC).
Pluralisation of "catalogue raisonné"
Correction made - thanks to Pangapilot934C (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, much of this content is bogus nonsense because "catalogue raisonne/" is NOT a compound word like mother-in-law. Sit simplex, and just say the plural is as Merriam Webster says below . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.25.241 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As a linguist, I disagree with the note on the plural form of the term "catalogue raisonné". The authority quoted re pluralisation of compound nouns relates to the English language. The term "catalogue raisonné" remains a French phrase used in English and so should follow French rules of pluralisation. Merriam-Webster has "catalogues raisonnés" as the plural and I agree.Pangapilot (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As the author of most of the entries on this article, I find your comments interesting and will try to follow them up (or add them to the article.) I note that the Catalogue Raisonné Scholars Association http://www.catalogueraisonne.org/ agrees with you.934C (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As a user, I find the article goes into to much detail about the grammar of the plural. The focus of the article should be more on the catalogue type itself. The nomenclature could be compressed into one sentence, rather than sprawling over three subheadings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.184.128 (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hard-copy pros and cons
Should the section detailing the benefits and drawbacks of hard-copy catalogues perhaps focus more strictly on issues specific to such catalogues? At present, it seems like much of the discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of online versus print publication formats is from a very general perspective. Perhaps these general considerations could be more concisely noted in passing.
Sillypillows (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Question re: Example Given
One of the examples of an online catalogue raisonné listed in this article The Fidel Micó Catalogue Raisonné is a link to a PDF. I wonder if this is indeed an example of an online catalogue.
15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Bentham2