Talk:Froissart of Louis of Gruuthuse

[Untitled]
Tag removed see below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gallery_of_illuminated_manuscript_images Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images

under new management
I have renamed the former "Froissart Gallery" this, & beefed it up. I had not seen the deletion tag on the talk page at the time. All the images were on Commons already, so I will remove the tag, as I think it stands up as an article. I will probably expand it more later. Johnbod 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now adequate as an article, so please leave alone (ie in terms of the AfD result). Thanks Johnbod 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Name
What's the significance of (BnF Fr 2643-6)? Unless it is the name the item is most commonly known by, I don't really think it needs to be included in the article name.--Peta 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the catalogue reference, and yes it is the name it is most commonly known by, like 6th century Italian Gospel Book (British Library, Harley 1775), or I.33 - and many others in Category:Illuminated manuscripts Johnbod 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up for me. --Peta 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first of those is now at "Harley 1775", and a browse through Category:Illuminated manuscripts shows the library catalogue number very rarely in the Wikipedia article title; those where that is the case have otherwise very generic names, so the catalogue number serves as a standard Wikipedia disambiguator. Given that Louis of Gruuthuse had only one Froissart, there is no need for such disambiguation here. jnestorius(talk) 12:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, unlike most of those in the WP category, this MS is often referred to only by the shelf matrk, in particular by the BnF, so should go back. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait, now you're saying it's only the shelf mark? In that case, shouldn't it be at BnF Fr 2643-6? jnestorius(talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both names may be used, often together, so this is the best solution. If you look at the wider Category:Manuscripts, & sub-cats like Category:Manuscripts of the Austrian National Library, you will see that shelf-marks and catalogue numbers are actually very common in titles, rather too much so. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the custom in Wikipedia to use two names as the article title when either one will do. Thus, we don't have Brian O'Nolan (Flann O'Brien, Myles na gCopaleen); instead Flann O'Brien and Myles na gCopaleen redirect to Brian O'Nolan. Of the articles in Category:Manuscripts of the Austrian National Library, only Special:PrefixIndex/Miniscule a minority of the Miniscule nnn have a superfluous (Gregory-Aland) disambiguator, and they should really be changed to match the others. jnestorius(talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But since you will find that references break down about evenly between name, name + shelfmark, & shelfmark, it is fine here. Frankly, don't you have anything more constructive to do? You could write something for example. Title or description + shelmark is a standard & helpful way of describing or titling MS in scholarship, and we should be moving towards it not away from it. We should not have moved 6th century Italian Gospel Book (British Library, Harley 1775) for example. The Greek miniscule MS should be titled "Greek gospel book, library + shelfmark" imo, but there are hundreds set up using Gregory-Aland numbers, which is more acceptable in those cases. Pure shelfmarks are rarely helpful, & rarely meet WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)