|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Mappa Mundi = medieval?
How come? What's the source of this affirmation? Mappa mundi means, literally, world map. Any map that represents the world is a mappa mundi. I challenge this concept of "only medieval" maps of the world are mappae mundi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Halló! I just found es:La Esfera del Mundo. Is this article related to the same subject. Pictures from other Mappa Mundi can be seen at links from Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi#usefull information. Regards Gangleri
- What is the reason why only medieval maps are called mappa mundi? I fully agree with the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading Bede and his account of the zones places them clearly in the sky, not on the Earth. I think that in the Early Middle Ages Zonal Maps are (sometimes|often|usually) related to the zones in the celestial sphere, not to zones on the Earth. Are there any examples of an ancient or early medieval map (say before 1100) that shows the zones unambiguously on the surface of the Earth? If not, the discussion and accompanying illustration are seriously misleading. --SteveMcCluskey 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Disregard my last. I checked Macrobius and he talks explicitly about the relation between the celestial parallels and their terrestrial equivalents. --SteveMcCluskey 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Mappaemundi" or "mappae mundi"?
If, according to the article, the plural of "mappa mundi" is "mappae mundi", should all the instances of "mappaemundi" in the article be replaced with "mappae mundi"? Thanks, David Kernow 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The same question went through my mind as I read this article. I'm pretty sure that it should be mappae mundi -- two words and italicized. --WikiPedant 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've peformed a simple find+replace on "mappaemundi" in the article, replacing it with "mappae mundi"; hope nothing has been broken in the process. Thanks for your input, David 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the T and O article is not, at this point, very long, it seemed to make more sense to have it as a section of this article rather than its own separate entity. Input would be much appreciated, as I've never suggested a merge before. Cheers. --Evan, guest editor; 19 Jul 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- The T and O article has developed quite well so perhaps should remain separate.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mappa mundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209042605/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020610/medieval_maps.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020610/medieval_maps.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.