Talk:Cosmographia (Bernardus Silvestris)

Requested move
Although some people seem to have doubts, I actually did devote a certain amount of thought to what title this article should be created at; I also consulted WP:NAME. My reasoning for a re-move of the article to Cosmographia is essentially twofold:


 * 1) WP currently has no articles about other works titled Cosmographia, so there's no need for a disambiguating expression in the title of this one. I created a page at Cosmographia (disambiguation), containing links to articles in which other works titled Cosmographia are discussed, and included an "otheruses" hatnote in this one in accordance with the guidelines at WP:DISAMBIG.
 * 2) Even if articles about other works called Cosmographia come to be created, I think a good argument can be made that this one constitutes the primary usage and should have the bare term as its title. Bernard's work is a major work of medieval literature, whereas the other works' names represent generic uses of Cosmographia to title geographical works (as many chemistry textbooks have been simply titled Chemistry). It's those hypothetical articles that should feature disambiguating expressions in their titles, not this one. Deor (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, the case here seems to me to be analogous—though perhaps not perfectly parallel—to the case of Metamorphoses, where the article on Ovid's poem has the bare title and similarly named works are distinguished with disambiguating expressions in their titles and linked at Metamorphoses (disambiguation). Deor (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated Cosmographia (disambiguation), expanded some articles, and created a new one for the work of Münster, which is probably the most notable of all the Cosmographiae. As I understand, Silvestris work does not contain any illustrations, thus fails in regard to graphia as we understand it today - graphics. -- Matthead Discuß   06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts that the Cosmographiae Introductio belongs on the dab page, since "Introduction to Cosmography" (or "Introduction to the Cosmographia") is really only a partial title match; but I've let it stand for now. I fail to see what illustrations have to do with the matter under discussion. Bernard's Cosmographia is a different kind of work from the others; it wasn't intended to provide accurate geographical information, graphically or otherwise. Deor (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, dab pages are more about words that intersect than concepts... so, I think it's important to include all of these in a dab--including the partial intersection. As for Bernard's being far more important than any of the others--I can't speak to that and I'd abide by any consensus between the two of you (and others). gren グレン 22:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this applies to anyone outside the field of medieval studies, but the "Cosmographia" is by default the one by (or ascribed to) Bernard Silvestris. (Personally I had never heard of the other ones until I read the disambiguation page.) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or move Cosmographia (disambiguation) to Cosmographia? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)