Talk:Coronation Gospels (British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius A.ii)

Image for this article
This image was originally in the article but was removed as there really wasn't enough text for two images. I'm listing it here in case it can be used in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! The article has been slightly expanded and the text actually refers to and cites the inscription ("shown here to the left", now to the right), so I'm pretty much inclined to think the image merits inclusion, hence the boldness. On a different note, would anyone mind if I move this to the more prosaic title "BL, Cotton Tiberius A. ii" (or should I leave out "BL")? Neither Keynes nor Karkov say "Coronation Gospels". Cavila (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, though I'm not knowledgeable about manuscript names. However, if we're going to name more than one or two of the Cotton manuscripts with their call number rather than a descriptive name, I think it would be good to establish a standard naming approach, if there's a forum that includes enough people with the right background.  I know a couple of editors with expertise in manuscripts -- Dsmdgold is one, and I think Adam Bishop too, as well as some of the Anglo-Saxon regulars such as Ealdgyth, Angus and the Deacon. Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About five years ago, Dsmdgold drafted "WP:Naming conventions (manuscript names)", which looks perfectly commonsensical to me except that "Manuscript Description" may be redundant (well, unless the subject of the article is part of a series of manuscripts). In this case, Coronation Gospels as a descriptive name would be misleading because it suggests a connection with the Coronation Gospels associated with the Carolingian court. Just "Gospels (British Library, etc...)" would be more appropriate, but to have Gospels as an extra qualifier is unnecessary. Anyway, we probably need some sort of 'handle' on the range of variation possible here: BL or British Library; Cotton Tiberius, Cotton MS Tiberius or Cotton MS. Tiberius; A. ii, A.ii or A ii (or A. II, etc.). Complicating things, the common name may sometimes be a shorthand of the call number, e.g. Rawlinson B 502 instead of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B 502. Beginning with the Cotton manuscripts sounds like a good start indeed. Cavila (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree - you will see that "Coronation Gospels" is quite commonly used by scholars such as Michelle Brown. In: Backhouse, Janet, Turner, D.H., and Webster, Leslie, eds.; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966-1066, 1984, British Museum Publications Ltd, ISBN 0714105325, where it is cat # 3, Backhouse's entry is just headed "The Coronation Gospels", though they don't use shelf-refs in headings. I wasn't aware the German-speakers had copyrighted the term, and Coronation Gospels is inevitably in effect a disam page. Any common name is a help in distinguishing these cumbersome BL shelf-references. If you think these are bad, look at DBachmann's remaining efforts such as MS 862 or those sodding New Testament manuscripts! Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those refs. Looks like "Coronation Gospels" is common enough indeed (and I just found a couple of refs myself). I'm not of course advocating that we should prioritise shelfmark titles over descriptive names, but if anything is cumbersome, it may be that the present article uses both of them. I won't belabour the point though (per WP:broke) and will leave things just as they are. Cavila (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)