Talk:Fécamp Bible

[Untitled]

I'm not sure that I understand the point of just cutting-and-pasting large amounts of data from the British Library website to Wikipedia! Anyone who just Googles 'fecamp bible' will find the entry on the BL website, with numerous images. If the BL updates/corrects their description of the MS, it will not be reflected in the Wiki entry, which may therefore be disseminating out of date / incorrect info.

To be clear, this is not a cut-and paste, the material has been rewritten. Unlike the BL, readers of this article can link to all sorts of related topics etc Johnbod 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all information in Wikipedia is derived from other sources, and all information in Wikipedia should be. This article is indeed a rewrite of the BL catalog information, but only because I haven't taken the time to acquire other sources, and incorporate that information into the article. I am actively involved in incorporating the information from multiple sources into many illuminated manuscript articles. But, I have only a limited amount of time. Given enough time and editors interested in the subject, WP will eventually have articles incorporating all relevent scholarship on every significant illuminated manuscript. Although a google search will lead you to the BL catalog page, I susect that most people don't come to this article via that route. I suspect that they get here through the category system or by following links in other articles. HAving the most complete information posssible for reader who get here by means other than google makes duplicating the information in BL useful. Dsmdgold 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the WP article is not a 'pure' cut-and paste; a number of new typos have been introduced. But if the article is based on a single source, then it will almost inevitably be inferior to that source; if a WP article combines information from several sources, then it is beginning to serve a useful purpose, by summarising those sources for the reader, and indicating where further information can be found.

Here are two examples of how the uncritical re-use of material from a single website is unhelpful in this case:

• the article did not explain anywhere why the MS is known as the "Fécamp Bible", the title of the article!
• it did not distinguish what is absolutely normal and standard about this Bible (which was recorded in the British Library catalogue precisely because it is a catalogue, not an article), from what is exceptional and interesting. I imagine that the WP article should highlight what is special about this Bible, not repeat what is unexceptional.

I have edited the page extensively, to show how much that is unimportant can be omitted. PeterKidd 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "substantional" like "computistical"? Seriously, it would be more use adding to the many articles you will find in Category:Illuminated manuscript stubs, or indeed to the main articles Illuminated manuscript and Miniature (illuminated manuscript). Ideally, you might say something on why the MS is of interest and importance also.

I don't understand your reference to "substantional"; it doesn't seem to appear in this article. The web is a bountiful source of unreliable information, so I think it is more important to correct mistakes and improve the value of existing WP articles, than to just add another article -- whose value will inevitably be questionable if lots of other WP articles are unreliable. PeterKidd 09:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was how you described your edit here in the edit summary. All those stubs are existing. Johnbod 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)