Talk:Vellum

Merge

Wouldn't it make sense to merge Vellum and Vellum parchment? Is there any reason for a disambiguation page, given that the two meanings listed are closely related? Wmahan 03:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I've merged them. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article. Vellum is a bit more complicated. Parchment is not vellum ... at times pieces of parchment would be sewn onto vellum for illustrative purposes, or maybe to cover a hole in the vellum produced by the stretching process (at times the scribe would even write around the wholes). This needs more work and as such should not be listed.

---

[User:William_Henry_Turner]I still have a problem with the first paragraph: In line 1, "Vellum is prepared animal skin or writing surface, typically calfskin.", maybe "or writing surface" is intended to be "as a writing surface". If so, it should follow "typically calfskin". Then the line that begins "If vellum is distinguished" makes no sense to me. Maybe you mean to say "If vellum must be distinguished as a particular type of animal skin...." If so, edit the rest of the sentence, too.

from the latin

the page for parchment says that vellum is derived from the latin for "calf," but here it gives the derivation from the latin for "pelt."

Velius is Latin for pelt, but my (offline) etymological resources (primarily Chambers Dictionary of Etymology) state that Vellum derives from Middle French velin, from Old French vel or veel, for calf. In English, it first appears in print as velym about 1430, thence to velum by 1499, and finally to vellum in 1636. The Online Etymological Dictionary agrees with the link to velin, though it indicates that velin is Old French, not Middle French.

And my copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with Middle French Velin, so I am changing the article. --Intelligence3 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins

The first paragraph states that vellum was originally made from pig skin. The second paragraph states that it was originally made from calf skin. Obviously these are at odds. I have had difficulty locating an online source for either. Despite etymological roots that may tie to calf, obviously it could have been originally made from swine before calves became more common for the purpose, the name perhaps having come later.

it's hard to imagine there were enough calves around to supply the medieval demand - I think sheep & doubtless pigs also got involved. I think early Irish vellum (Book of Kells etc was from lambs, although i don't think the article says so Johnbod 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Torah scrolls

The article states without reference that vellum made from unborn calf skin is "still the preferred type for Torah scrolls today." I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any knowledge of Kosher law, but it struck me as a possible misconception. I've found no sources to back up the claim; rather, most sources seem only to indicate which part of the calf's skin is preferable. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Dmagus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a rabbi explaining this on TV recently. Why a possible misconception? Johnbod 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm actually updating the article on scrolls, and so will sync it with this article. This article is wrong in the sense that klaf (Hebrew) was the original use of velum or parchment for writing, and any kosher animal's skin can be used, but obviously must be thin enough to enable the scroll to be rolled. The preferred skin is that of deer, and for this reason those made in Iraq were highly prized in the ancient and medieval times right up to the 18th century, often imported into Europe, particularly Germany.--Mrg3105 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"additional step"

The sentence "Large paper drawings require an additional step (tracing paper amenable to letting light pass through it, and hence is more error prone)" appears to be an unfinished thought. It is unclear what additional step the author was referring to, and what the connection between light passing through and errors is.

Lriley47 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Paper vellum

It is rather unfortunate and unsurprising that only the obscure American drawing sizes are seen as worth mentioning. Most of the world uses ISO-sizes (A0, A1, A2 etc). 213.243.170.211 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Petri

The paper sizes are not completely identified. These are the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Sizes, and are not the only sizes used in the United States. Architectural paper sizes, which are slightly larger, are also used. Lriley47 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An entry on vellum seems like a completely non-obvious and inappropriate place for a discussion of paper sizes or VLSI technologies. This discussion should be replaced with appropriate references to other entries (in the case of paper sizes, incorporating the ISO size comment above), or omitted entirely (in the case of VLSI). Rschnitz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just chopped out that VLSI essay, along with the discussion of ANSI paper sizes. The remaining paragraph is still far from optimal: inaccurate, opaque, and unsupported by references. "Scaling a drawing," or measuring dimensions from the lines on it, was considered a poor practice exactly because of paper's lack of dimensional stability. Photo-reproduction applications requiring stability, such as circuit layout, were more likely to use Mylar or Rubylith than paper vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Material and manufacture

This section of the article leads off with the sentence: "There is some confusion about the relationship between the words vellum and parchment." It then goes on to describe vellum in detail, but completely neglects to clarify the confusion between vellum and parchment. If no clarification is to be offered, shouldn't this sentence be removed? Or, more properly, shouldn't some clarification be given? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems clear that there is a consistent distinction, & if so, what it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Separed the parchmen Vellum of the paper vellum

I suggested, what the paper (fay from bois or chiffon) vellum, from the vellum el peau of baby-cow deadborn, whos is a sort of parchment.

--Jean-François Clet (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

er, sorry? Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthropodermic bibliopegy

Regarding this diff: See here pages 96 and 99, where human skin is said to resemble pigskin, hardly to be mistaken for vellum. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking it to the talk page

I don't really remember why I was supposed to take it here, but am supposed to. Can someone help me out?VampireDoctor (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me making that recommendation. It may not have been your intent, but this edit of yours brought back a wad of stuff about VLSI semiconductor design that really has no place in this article. See previous discussion of that issue. In addition, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for any statements added to the encyclopedia. While there may have been a few documents written on pieces of human skin somewhere, sometime, that has to amount to a tiny fraction of all the vellum ever used throughout history. Only guessing, but I bet it amounted to much much much less than one per cent of all vellum documents ever written. That kind of "gee whiz" minutiae doesn't really belong in the top section of an encyclopedia article.

Not so far down in the article there is mention of "other animals, including deer, donkey, horse, camel and even man" with a citation-needed tag. If you have a reliable source to cite, that seems like the perfect place for it. If you need help formatting the reference, there are plenty of folks around, myself included, to step in and help fix it up. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bill, I agree with the doctor, you just removed far too much there. That section on engineering use of vellum paper was informative and useful, and since this article covers both skin vellum and vellum paper, this is where it belongs too.--Svartalf (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to some reliably sourced text coming back regarding the engineering use of vellum paper, but too much of what was there was an inaccurate unsourced essay about CAD and VLSI, looking a lot like original research. This is not the place for that __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

About the only "informative and useful" part of the removed content was a table of ANSI paper sizes. The section now has a link to a less amateurish presentation of that information. Furthermore, the contributor in question has been indefinitely blocked as a racist vandal and block-evading sockpuppet, so good faith cannot be assumed here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

We have a picture which says this is a vellum document of the seventeenth century. Problem is, the EXACT SAME ILLUSTRATION is also used in the article on parchment, saying, this is a parchment document of the seventeenth century. Is it one or t'other? Can anyone tell?140.161.86.159 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Essentially no one here has been able to produce an adequate referenced distinction, & its not clear there ever was one except for "quality". I'd have thought a mere deed was more likely to be parchment. Who added that pic; it wasn't there before? Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Both 'herse' and 'hearse' are used in the article. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.213.237 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no 'a'. It's fixed. Span (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Having looked at a few of your recent edits I have to say that a high proportion of them seem unhelpful to the project to me. You mainly remove material, which is a classic warning sign. Your judgement as to what is "POV" seems idiosyncratic and often poor. You feel justified in removing uncited material, on a somewhat random basis. This is generally not very helpful - unfortunately there is not much difference between the overall accuracy of cited and uncited material on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the proportion of uncited material is high. Removing it very often just leaves gaps that weaken the article. This isn't 2006, and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we don't now. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Vellum. The line I removed was tagged as an opinion. That's why I removed it. It's also entirely appropriate to removed material that's united, since verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.Flyte35 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And then it may be put back again, if needed, with any tags. I repeat, please don't think you are doing something useful. you aren't. Note the wording of the policy: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" - you should challenge it first, by tagging. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. The principle doesn't state that one must tag all material first before one can remove it. As it says : "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The best way for you to fix this problem would be to provide sourcing to support the accuracy of the information you're sure about.Flyte35 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true. You are of course very welcome to add references yourself, but of course that's not as much fun as going round just zapping stuff. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The line in in the article in question is "Many libraries and museums increasingly use only the term 'membrane.' Depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal involved (let alone the age of the animal) without using a laboratory, and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment." I have not found sourcing to support the accuracy of that information. That's why I am not adding it. That's, again, a central principle of wikipedia: don't include text without sourcing. I'm not really sure what you're asking for here.Flyte35 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to leave it cite tagged, and go away & do something useful. It was already added - you removed it. Two editors (both of whom edit in the subject area) have told you it is accurate. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on, you know how this works. If you're sure you can add the sourcing that makes you sure. The line about membrane is hardly crucial to the article. Removing it doesn't "leave a gap the weakens the article," which was your original justification for including unsourced material. Flyte35 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, how it works is this is relevant material, as TWO editors have told you, which happens to be difficult to source in the usual way. It was tagged, and should be left, with its tags. I think your judgement as to what does and does not leave a gap poor, as many of your edits show. Your edits are unconstructive. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if editors can't source it, whether in the "usual way" or not, there's no reason to add the material. Again: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The line is about museums' use of the word. That line is not essential to the flow or meaning of the article, which doesn't otherwise mention museums or their use of the term whatsoever. Flyte35 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(Moved by him from his talk page). The material removed was: " Many libraries and museums increasingly use only the safe if confusing term "membrane"; depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal involved (let alone the age of the animal) without using a laboratory, and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment." If anyone has a reference please add here. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Images

Magna Carta

1638 deed

Portolan chart (1533)

Natural Science book (1300)

Now that we've pretty much got the parchment/vellum distinction agreed (viz. that, in modern usage, there isn't an absolute distinction, but that "parchment" refers to all types of animal membrane used as a writing material; whereas "vellum" refers to a subset of finer quality), can I raise the issue of the four images currently illustrating the article – copied here for convenience. Because it seems to me that all four illustrate parchment, and not vellum.

Deeds, legal instruments, and other archival documents were invariably written on everyday parchment, not fine vellum. Magna Carta is a nice iconic lede image; but, in the vast amount of literature on the subject, most authorities refer to "parchment", as does our Wikipedia article. The portolan chart is a higher-quality item, but it's also on a large, heavy-duty sheet, and I'd certainly be inclined to call it parchment, not vellum. (The image originates from a Dutch source, where the material was described as "perkament": this was then translated into English as "vellum" – I would suggest incorrectly. In fact, in this particular case, as the sheet comprises a substantial part of the hide, it might be possible for an expert to determine the animal species without too much difficulty; but we would of course need a reliable source.) The natural science book is more borderline, but it's still a student's working textbook, and it looks more like "parchment" than "vellum" to me.

Can't we find a few images of high-quality presentation manuscripts that are more unequivocally written on vellum? The obvious thing would probably be an illuminated manuscript, but most of the images available on Commons (c:Category:Illuminated manuscripts) understandably focus on the individual illuminations, rather than the support. Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?

GrindtXX (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you find an appropriate example in a library, photograph it, and upload it to Wikipedia. A university librarian should be knowledgeable enough to direct you to a representative sample. — Anita5192 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your premise. What the membrane copies of UK legislation are still put on is invariably described as vellum. There are of course several MC MS, and a search shows it is not hard to find them called vellum [1], though the BL certainly describe this one as parchment. I would think formal royal charters etc were more often than not on vellum. There will be no real visual difference, but any late medieval illuminated ms of quality should be on "vellum". There's an issue with the rather different questions: 1) What is the best term for this material? and 2) What terms for this material are wrong? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)