Talk:Cotton library

Category Removal
I removed the tag for Category:Libraries in the United Kingdom because the Cotton library does not exist anymore as a separate library. It was one of the founding collections of the British Library. Dsmdgold 12:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call. The only counter argument could be historical: a founding library in Bratain.  In that regard, it could be in the category.  However, it is not a current library at all.  Geogre 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Full list
I think it might be justifiable to have either a list of all the mss in the Cotton library, or a category for them. Every single ms is likely to be notable, after all, and I'd think they'd each have their own article eventually. In addition, a reader who sees a reference to a Cotton ms number somewhere may use that as the way to locate more information on that manuscript. Any comments? I thought I'd post a note before going off and starting such a list, in case someone has an objection I haven't thought of. I will also find an appropriate WikiProject and post a note there. Mike Christie (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that a list would be a great idea. The only objections I would have are practical. There are a lot of manuscripts in the Cotton collection. One could find could compile it from the BL online manuscript catalog after a fashion. However many of the entries are in Latin and may not adequately identify the the manuscript in modern terms. Dsmdgold 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll give it a shot. I can start with what's on this page, and grow it as I find material.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cottonian library
Who ever refers to it as the "Cotton library"? The British Library and English academic or historic sources over 300 years refer to it as the Cottonian library; only the BL shelf references appear more briefly as "Cotton" in the founder's name. When and why has the misleading title of this article, which sounds like a cotton-growers' facility, been adopted? Jezza (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about the usual name in reliable sources, nor am I the person who gave the article this name. I did a quick search on Google Books for references to "Cotton Library" and "Cottonian Library" and found about an equal number of references to both.  Can you give a recent reliable reference for the "Cottonian Library" usage? Mike Christie (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming late to this discussion... the British Library nowadays seems to talk about the "Cotton Library" - see here and here. (I was brought to read this article after a couple of rather cryptic mentions of "a library fire in 1731" in captions of the BL's current splendid Anglo-Saxons exhibition which I saw this morning). Pam  D  23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest that Monk of Malmesbury be merged into Cotton library. He appears to be known exclusively as the presumed author of an article therein, and there's near-zero content in his article. — Moriwen (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The last thing we want to do is clutter up this article with stuff on the more obscure of hundreds of MS in it. I'd imagine the article is actually about as complete as it can be. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The content stands alone and would be "undue" in the article on the collection. Pam  D  05:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is about the collection as a whole, not the individual items in it. GrindtXX (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)