This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy 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.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
"Howlett titles the work Draco Normannicus a word order not used in the manuscript. Further Howlett translates the title as the Norman Standard rather than the Norman Dragon. Although the incipit and explicit of the text, as well as the table of contents of the Vatican manuscript give the title as Normannicus Draco, Howletts word order has become the customary title for the work." Please let me know how what I have written is not in the source? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that one version of the title is "correct", implying that the other is "wrong". That evaluative judgment is not in the source. Incidentally, you have broken your 1rr restriction and mis-used a blanket revert that was also reinserting multiple unrelated details of bad formatting and poor grammar; please self-revert immediately. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not on a 1rr restriction, it was lifted at ANI quite some time ago, I have no intention of reverting as what I have written is in the source, and I request you stop trying to bait me. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link to that ANI decision please. And are you still claiming Leake Day is judging those word order variants as "correct" or "wrong"? (And are you going to at least correct your typographical errors that I tried to fix and which you reinserted twice?) Fut.Perf.☼ 13:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is right there in front of you, "explicit of the text" See "leaving no doubt about the meaning" Hence one is correct, the other wrong. I am not going to search ANI, ask Regentspark, he took part in the discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a value judgment about the quality of the editorial work of a reputed academic, claiming that his editorial decision in normalizing a Latin title from the accidental word order found in a text to the basic standard word order of Latin is somehow "incorrect". You have, of course, no knowledge whatsoever of the significance or insignificance of such word order distinctions in the naming of medieval works, or of academic standards and conventions in how to deal with medieval Latin in modern editions. The idea that only the precise word form found in a manuscript could be used as the "correct" title is yours alone, and nowhere implied in Leake Day's discussion. (Oh, and incidentally, you misread the entire syntax of that quoted text anyway. The word "explicit" as used by Leake Day has nothing to do with the normal adjective "explicit"; it's a noun and means "the closing lines of a manuscript" [1] (but even if she had been using the adjective, it would still not constitute a judgment on the "correctness" of Howlett's practice). Fut.Perf.☼ 13:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tip: incidentally, and funnily, the example illustration the British Library gives for an "explicit" at the link above happens to be from a copy of William of Penafort's Summa de poenitentia; you might want to use it for that article; it's a nice and good-quality PD file. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just finished reading the source cited in the article by Mildred Leake Day and it is clear that there is no mention a correct title, but only that Howlett's title is customary even though the customary title is not the word order found in the original text. So, the article should be reverted to the original text. It might be a good idea, however, to expand the original text in this article to make the context of the customary title clearer. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in; just to clarify: the "original text" of the article was in fact the one that did contain the "correct"/"incorrect" judgment; I don't suppose you meant to suggest to revert to that, right? Fut.Perf.☼ 13:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is closest to the source and what the article should be reverted to. Further clarification edits might be useful, but I don't have any suggestions. --I am One of Many (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the content remover who seems unable to also sort out the refs, how does the source not support the quote? "Ortu magna, viro major, sed maxima partu, Hic jacet Henrici filia, sponsa, parens.{{efn|"Great by birth, greater by marriage, greatest in her offspring, here lies the daughter, wife, and mother of Henry" Darkness Shines (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the epitaph on her tomb, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article; it is neither mentioned in the Draco itself, nor discussed by the Oxford DNB source in any substantial connection with the Draco (other than both the Draco and the epitaph having something to do with her burial). Your text made it appear as if the epitaph was from the Draco. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
