Talk:Banderole
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Categories
[edit]Including this among categories concerned with clothing blurs the categories. I haven't deleted the category, however. --Wetman 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will. Churchh 04:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Art and architecture
[edit]With regards to these edits what the cited source Eb1911 says is: "in architecture, a band used in decorative sculpture of the Renaissance period for bearing an inscription, &c."
The OED brakes them into two:
- 3.A ribbon-like scroll bearing a device or inscription.
- 1622 F. Markham Five Decades Epist. of Warre ii. ix. 74 His Colors‥are euermore contained in the Band-role vpon which his Crest standeth.
- 1875 C. D. E. Fortnum Maiolica iii. 30 Portraits of ladies with a ribbon or banderole on which the name is inscribed.
- 4. Archit. A flat band with an inscription, used in decorating buildings of the Renaissance period.
Now it is possible that "ribbon-like scroll bearing a device or inscription" that is not heraldic was used in the middle ages (although not called that in contemporary English language documents), but it needs a source. We can not add information before a cited source that extrapolates beyond what the sources says. (see WP:INTEGRITY ) -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neither of these are RS for art history. The slightest acquaintance with the subject shows they are par excellence medieval, as does the Romanesque image used at the main article. I will add a proper source later. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Never said they were, but they are both reliable sources, so I suggest that until such time as another more specialised reliable sources is added we revert the text to the version that is supported by the sources. If as you as it is common parlance in the field then it will be easy for you to find a suitable source. -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it was, and would have been for you too. Talking of references, what makes that heraldry website a RS? And it is absurd to reference EB 1911 as "Chisholm, 1911", if we must use it, which actually we mustn't. The OED is a general dictionary, mostly written over a century ago, and should not be used in this way. It is especially poor on art history, where the vocabulary was just forming. That's before we get on to your very dubious (and undiscussed - OF COURSE) move of the page. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was reverting your bold and undiscussed move ;-) Thank you for supplying a better source. I suggest however that we remove the additional text that you have added and keep the section as brief a possible (as a summary style paragraph), otherwise it will continue to grow and will become a content fork for the speech scroll section on banderoles. -- PBS (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- There was no one to discuss it with then, when clearly there is now. The section is shorter that at the other article, and should not be removed or shortened without restoring the plain term as a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was reverting your bold and undiscussed move ;-) Thank you for supplying a better source. I suggest however that we remove the additional text that you have added and keep the section as brief a possible (as a summary style paragraph), otherwise it will continue to grow and will become a content fork for the speech scroll section on banderoles. -- PBS (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it was, and would have been for you too. Talking of references, what makes that heraldry website a RS? And it is absurd to reference EB 1911 as "Chisholm, 1911", if we must use it, which actually we mustn't. The OED is a general dictionary, mostly written over a century ago, and should not be used in this way. It is especially poor on art history, where the vocabulary was just forming. That's before we get on to your very dubious (and undiscussed - OF COURSE) move of the page. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Never said they were, but they are both reliable sources, so I suggest that until such time as another more specialised reliable sources is added we revert the text to the version that is supported by the sources. If as you as it is common parlance in the field then it will be easy for you to find a suitable source. -- PBS (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neither of these are RS for art history. The slightest acquaintance with the subject shows they are par excellence medieval, as does the Romanesque image used at the main article. I will add a proper source later. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)