Talk:Codex Gigas

Cleanup template
Why was clean-up template placed to the Legend of creation section? This section is just translation (maybe sometime bad) from czech wiki. --Jklamo 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody responded, so i will delete clean-up template. --Jklamo 16:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Legend section could use more sourcing. Also, I made two edits to that section, one a minor punctuation change to make a sentence more readable and the other changing the claim of the length of time it would have taken to complete the transcription.
 * allixpeeke (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit Changes
Have tried to clean up this article somewhat. Previous version contained the following in the 'content' section: Very interesting are spiral ornamentations with flower browse. I wasn't sure what this meant so I took it out, feel free to put it back in if you can demystify it. Odmrob 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

who know
where are good gouality images of this codex on net? Nasz 10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The codex is stored in the Sweden. Today I added a link to the place where the national library shows it online. Hope you like it. Greetings, Fleurstigter 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

for shame
From the first paragraph: "...and the legend surrounding it's creation." I only have one question: what is an "it is creation" and do people who are fluent in English actually contribute to pages like these? 99.234.79.221 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should just change any minor grammar mistakes you find if they bother you. Good luck holding the internet masses to the standard that you've set here.166.122.10.94 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is an "its creation," and why didn't you include a comma after the quotation? Muphry's law might help you out a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.86.80 (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

no RATES?
THIS has not been rated YET?!!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.28.14 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Devil Caption
The devil picture appears on page 577 of the book (according to the text and reference) not page 270 as the caption to the image previously stated (I checked 270 and it wasn't illustrated). I've changed the caption Adlab (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not page 577 or page 270. Medieval manuscripts are not numbered in pages. Medieval manuscripts are number in folios. The devil is on folio 270 recto (f.270r). This is why wikipedia is so damned stupid. No one knows a god damn thing about anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.86.20 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

shaa illuminati hailp mi mani pilz Shaa shaikh (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I love universe Abhishek123Burnstar (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

vellum and numbering
Ok, I just came across this page while browsing about the TV show 'Ashes to ashes'. What struck me was that in the 'Appearance' paragraph it says 'vellum' and 'parchment', two different things. Also, the number of pages in this paragraph are 'eight removed' from 320 pages but 310 pages remain! Can someone with knowledge on this subject please correct 'vellum' vs 'parchment' and '320 = 310 = 8 pages removed' please? Ta, Mondegreen de plume (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 'vellum' and 'parchment' are in theory two different things, but there is no consistent distinction or dividing line - vellum is just high quality parchment, but how high? Many museums now use "animal membrane" but that would be confusing for most readers here. But we should be consistent. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

290 or 270?
The caption of the picture says it's on "Folio 270 recto". The text says it's on "Folio 290 recto". The reference shows the image (as page / image 577), but doesn't actually provide the folio number at all. So which is correct? I don't know enough about how the folios are counted to determine from the wdl reference which is right. --David Edgar (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit needed
This whole entry is badly written, someone needs to edit it for style and grammar. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TheDaveRoss. This first sentence is incomplete: "The Codex Gigas (English: Giant Book) medieval manuscript in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the result of weird Cyrillic vandalism. I've fixed it. --Seduisant (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Image
Here is an image of the codex with a person beside the codex which helps to understand the size of the codex. I did not find the image in the article, but did not wish to add it before checking with the authors. An author can add the image if they wish http://i.imgur.com/v9rWjJd.jpg Jcardazzi (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
 * It's not so much whether we wish to add it as whether or not the photograph's owner says we can. They would have to donate the image or otherwise release it under the proper rights. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The emphasized paragraph is obscure, and it's unclear how it is related to the previous sentence: " Legend has it, that it was written by one scribe.[5] Acts 12:25 reads απο Ιερουσαλημ ("from Jerusalem") along with manuscripts: D, Ψ, 181, 436, 614, 2412, ℓ 147, ℓ 809, ℓ 1021, ℓ 1141, ℓ 1364, ℓ 1439, ar, d, vg, Chrysostom; majority reads εις Ιερουσαλημ (to Jerusalem).[6] Acts 18:26 supports reading την οδον of Codex Bezae.[7] " אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As per the Swedish National Library's website (http://www.kb.se/codex-gigas/eng/) "The original manuscript is no longer on display for the general public. The treasury exhibition is closed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.89 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

popular culture
The Codex Gigas is referred to in popular culture, invoking its legend. Should there be a popular culture section for this article? I know at least the Black Tapes Podcast references the Codex Gigas. IWSchlom (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Gigas. 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/20070512165835/http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/Sweden/treasures_en.xml to http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/Sweden/treasures_en.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011014530/http://www.kb.se/codex-gigas/eng/Browse-the-Manuscript/ to http://www.kb.se/codex-gigas/eng/Browse-the-Manuscript/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Description of the Devil portrait
We need to address the description of the Devil portrait. It would seem to be contrary to Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. It should be more impartial and less opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetworkingGangsta (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @NetworkingGangsta -- I agree. I took a stab at neutral re-write on Oct 21.  @Johnbod pointed out that it ended up reading clumsily.  @Johnbod, is it alright with you if I take another stab at a re-write of that section? -- Cloud atlas (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What we need is references. It shouldn't be bland, but needs refs. Johnbod (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Free fire max
Free fire is game of garina this is online game for 4 players 114.31.185.181 (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Gog magog
English 2C0F:ED28:1048:B920:88FA:2E37:3736:6AF5 (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Devi Biber
Boy 2405:201:6013:80F2:E85B:E30E:EF71:C4E5 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)