Talk:Hereford Mappa Mundi
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Largest medieval map
edit"...is the largest medieval map currently in existence." -- I don't understand this - surely no more can possibly be created? 84.9.145.154 (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right; that was non-optimal wording. Fixed. DS (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages
editChanges and footnotes styles
editHi all, I'm going to try to expand this article on the basis of some of the sources oive added to the list, especially to look at the purpose of the map and its interpretation. This will involve using multiple uses of the same sources, probably with differing pages, so the notes would work better as the harvnb style often used on history pages, with notes for each reference, and the sources listed in full once at the end. I know Wikipedians don't like changes to notes and language styles without editorial consenses, so please let me know if there's any objection. I'll leave it for about 10 days before I do anything! Jim Killock (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me as long as it's done consistently through the article. Glendoremus (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's done. Jim Killock (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
New material
editHi @Deor, apologies for leaving the page in a half finished state. I'm about to add material from the sources I've already added relating to anti-semitic images that were used to help justify the expulsion of the Jewry, according to one interpretation; and information about the portrayal of women which the source contends was designed to reinforce patriarchial views of society. These are decidedly not tangential pieces of information, as I hope you will see. I will therefore restore and expand on my edits - please bear with me!
Jim Killock (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Deor, could you please check before deleting sources I add? I am not adding them randomly. For instance, you have deleted information about one book being a second edition; this important as the editions are quite different. You have also deleted a Mittman reference, which I am about to add information from. Jim Killock (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JimKillock: I don't recall deleting any sources or any information in them, but it's possible that I did so inadvertently. Could you post diffs of the two instances you cited above so that I can learn from my mistakes? I've tried to stay mostly out of the way of your work on the article since I realized that you were planning a major revision, butting in only when my edits seemed unlikely to interfere with your efforts. Deor (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi sure, and thank you. See this diff. Thanks for making the other corrections also. I think I'll be working on this for a while, it turns out to be a very big topic! Jim Killock (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The only edit I was intending to make there was to change "Connolly" to "Connelly" in the shortened ref (which I see you had already done). I was probably inadvertently editing the old version with "Connolly", and that had the effect of wiping out several of your subsequent edits. (I should have noticed that my edit, which shouldn't have changed the byte count of the article at all, actually removed 508 bytes.) I've made that sort of mistake only a few times in the past, and I apologize most heartily. Deor (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem and thanks for checking! Jim Killock (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The only edit I was intending to make there was to change "Connolly" to "Connelly" in the shortened ref (which I see you had already done). I was probably inadvertently editing the old version with "Connolly", and that had the effect of wiping out several of your subsequent edits. (I should have noticed that my edit, which shouldn't have changed the byte count of the article at all, actually removed 508 bytes.) I've made that sort of mistake only a few times in the past, and I apologize most heartily. Deor (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi sure, and thank you. See this diff. Thanks for making the other corrections also. I think I'll be working on this for a while, it turns out to be a very big topic! Jim Killock (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JimKillock: I don't recall deleting any sources or any information in them, but it's possible that I did so inadvertently. Could you post diffs of the two instances you cited above so that I can learn from my mistakes? I've tried to stay mostly out of the way of your work on the article since I realized that you were planning a major revision, butting in only when my edits seemed unlikely to interfere with your efforts. Deor (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Noting controversy around Strickland's papers
editNoting that Strickland's views are going to be viewed as controversial; hence a couple of IP editors have removed them from time to time, most recently with commentary here. It is also true that they do contain some speculation, but this is quite normal for history and more so for art history. That doesn't make her papers invalid sources, but does require balance in reporting her and other (art) historian's views. As of yet I haven't seen anyone rejecting her claims but of course if such are found then this will need to be added. Jim Killock (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)