Talk:Incunable

"sometimes incunabulum..."
Definitely not, this is a mistake: the word "incunabula" only exists in plural form, since ancient latin times (see f.e. sources Ceasar et. al.). There is no ancient or Early Modern source which uses this singular, neither do experts today. Please delete this wrong phrase. --Felistoria (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the word is badly constructed, but it exists - see for example https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/incunabulum . --Mervyn (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this word does not exist in Latin. In Englisch you say "incunable" (same in French), "incunabulo" in Italiano, in German we say "Inkunabel", but nobody says (and ever said...) "incunabulum" for the singular; it's a Plurale tantum. Oxford's error, sorry: a modern anachronism maybe...;-) --Felistoria (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that the OED gives a quotation for the singular: "1866 Sat. Rev. 21 Sept. 305 The facsimile of a most interesting ‘incunabulum’." OED Online, "incunabula, n.  (accessed January 14, 2021). See also Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, "Incunabulum"  accessed January 14, 2021 (singular lemma); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th edn), "incunabulum"  accessed January 14, 2021 (singular lemma). — Pajz (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

List of major collections: Proposal to introduce a minimum amount of copies held
I suggest the introduction of a minimum amount of copies held to this table. Currently, the smallest collection listed comprises 149 copies. The British Library's Incunabula Short Title Catalogue, which generally under-reports libraries' holdings, currently gives 498 institutions with holdings of at least 149 copies. On the one hand, this suggests that our list with its approximately 125 entries is quite incomplete (there seems to be a considerable level of geographical bias, particularly with respect to smaller holdings - Italian libraries, for instance, seem heavily underrepresented). On the other hand, it would also appear unreasonable to have a table with 500 entries in this article. To give some perspective, the ISTC records 45 institutions with holdings >2000, 88 with holdings >1000, 124 with holdings >750, 184 with holdings >500, and 232 with >400. Personally, I would propose to set a minimum of 1,000 or at least 750 copies and to remove institutions with smaller holdings. That way, we could also try to maintain a more or less complete table of the largest collections. I understand a point could be made that some smaller collections may nonetheless be more noteworthy than others (eg, a small collection like that of the Burgos Provincial Library, which has less than 150 incunabula, but one of them is a complete Gutenberg bible). However, the table is currently organised around the number of copies/editions held and there is no mention of any other justification for the inclusion of a library. — Pajz (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - 750 or 1000 seems fine. Btw, what does the last bit in "The British Library's Incunabula Short Title Catalogue now records over 29,000 titles, of which around 27,400 are incunabula editions (not all unique works)." mean - "around 27,400 exist in more than one copy" perhaps?  Gutenberg bible has its own list, so I wouldn't worry about that.  Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, my guess is that the statement means that out of the 29,000 editions recorded in the ISTC, 27,400 are actually incunabula, the remainder (ie, 1,600) being post-incunabula. This would seem to be roughly correct, although the absolute figures have changed slightly in the meantime: The ISTC now contains entries for 30,518 editions, 28,493 of which were printed before 1501, and 2,142 in 1501 or later (no idea why these numbers do not add up exactly). — Pajz (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC) (Corrected, 11:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC))
 * A question about the ISTC - it returns different search results for "Strasbourg" and for "Strassburg"; same for "Haguenau" and Hagenau". Do you know if these results are overlapping or cumulative? Thank you --Edelseider (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edelseider, I don't really know. Though I suppose you are talking about printing locations and if you go through their index of printing locations at https://data.cerl.org/istc/_index/imprintplace, it only contains "Strassburg" and "Hagenau", but none of the other spellings/versions. So it looks to me like the other spellings may be somewhere in the full text of the entries but the 'attribute' (for lack of a better word) is the same. — Pajz (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The other spelling must be of the location of books, then, because of course these cities have French names now. See: https://data.cerl.org/istc/_search?query=Strasbourg&from=0 and https://data.cerl.org/istc/_search?query=Strassburg&from=0. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edelseider, right. In the index of locations (https://data.cerl.org/istc/_index/location), they are given as "Strasbourg BNU", "Strasbourg BM", "Strasbourg BGS", etc, and "Haguenau BM", respectively. — Pajz (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And since we are at it, your statement "[The ISTC] generally under-reports libraries' holdings" is 100% correct. They indicate 81 for the Colmar BM (bibliothèque municipale), although it has 2,300! Incredible! --Edelseider (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

John Evelyn
I have just done a fairly substantial edit of the "Etymology" section, and I hope improved it: much of it seemed to have been written by a non-native English speaker, or perhaps translated (not very well) from a non-English source text. More could be done. What is now para 3 opens "The term incunabula came to denote the printed books themselves in the late 17th century." That is followed by a 1678 quote from John Evelyn: the quote is moderately interesting in demonstrating an emerging interest in early printed texts, but the word incunabula doesn't appear, so it's really quite irrelevant here. I'm inclined to cut it, but I raise the point here first. The earliest citation given by the OED for the word incunabula (or any variant), in the printing sense and in English, is from 1861. GrindtXX (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No further comments, so I'm going to remove the Evelyn quote. GrindtXX (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Balkans
The British library lists Incunabla published in Croatia and Montenegro, but not in Serbia. It may list some more held in Serbia today, but that is not what this section is about. The source is referenced at the start of the paragraph. If you have a source for Incunabla published in Serbia then it can of course be added, but it's not in the current evidence, and Croatia and Montenegro are.Pipsally (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:Orchomen.

Doesn't even tell how it works
This article didn't tell how the subject worked. Awful Baccherini (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Incunabula are (as explained in the lead) a type of printed book. They "work" by people opening them and reading them. I'm unclear what information you feel is missing. GrindtXX (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for what OP meant, but I'm also confused. Why would a book printed before 1500 be called an incunable? The lede gives a bit of context for what isn't an incunable, but I think there's a distinction being implied that isn't connected outright. e.g. "An incunable is any printed book that existed before the widespread use of the printing press, before 1500" maybe? I'm sure it seems clear to someone with prior knowledge, but it's actually pretty ambiguous without context. 68.230.11.13 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see any ambiguity. The lead section looks 100% clear to me. Do you think everything has to be crammed into the first sentence, e.g.so it can be seen, in one soundbite, at GoogleSearch? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Allow me to illustrate the problem using all the sentances of the lede. Here's what it currently says in its basest form: "An incunable is a book printed before 1500. Incunables are not manuscripts. Incunables were made before the widespread use of the printing press. Some authorities include block books as incunabula. (and 4 sentences about how many incunabula exist)". So I know the year, a few things they aren't, and when they were made. But at this point if you told me that an 'incunable' is just an old book of sex positions, I'd have no reason to doubt it because the lede hasn't actually told me what seperates an incunable from any other book. Presumably it is meant to distinguish it from books made during the time of the printing press, but it doesn't actually say that, it just says they were made before. So my previous question "why is a book printed before 1500 called an incunable?" isn't answered. Is there some unforeseen reason to resist improving it? 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By all means provide a suggestion as to how it could be re-written in a clearer way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See my previous problem: I don't know what an incunable is because the article hasn't told me. But I did make a suggestion in my first post based on what I assume is the point and asked for help. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What separates an incunable from any other book is the fact that it's printed, and the date. A book (or other document) printed at any date up to 1500 is an incunable; a book printed at any date from 1501 onwards is not an incunable. That's it. It might be a book of sex positions, or a history of Lithuania, or a Bible: the content is irrelevant. The size and format is irrelevant. Whether it contains illustrations or not is irrelevant. Your mention of the printing press is irrelevant. The lede sentence currently says "An incunable ... is a book, pamphlet, or broadside that was printed in Europe up to the year 1500." That is a simple, straightforward, one-sentence definition. There is no ambiguity, and I really see nothing that needs discussion. GrindtXX (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So I've read, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it? Why is it called an incunable? Who called it that, and for what purpose? What changed at or around 1500 to require a new word for printed books? Basic 5 Ws stuff one would expect from an encyclopedia. As there's presumably no intrinsic difference between a book printed in 1499 and a book printed in 1501, we have no reason to expect our readers understand the distinction. If you understand it, why not explain it? 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you understand what it is, yes? But you are asking now about the etymology of the word "incunacble", and when it was first used, by whom and why? The year 1500 might seem a bit random, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand it's a book printed before 1500, yes. That explains as much to an outsider as saying "A wabbledoop is any book printed between 1976 and 1978". What it really needs is an explanaton and context, not so much an etymology of the word itself. If it doesn't involve the printing press, I'm at a loss, but I can't imagine it's too difficult a question to answer from the inside. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you having difficulty in understanding how a book could be printed without a printing press? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding why a book printed before 1500 is called an incunable. Are you able to answer that question? I'm being as clear and patient as I can be, but this is starting to feel intentionally unproductive. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried my best to understand what your issue is. If you think I'm being purposely obstinate, you're probably best waiting for someone else to have a go. I will watch with interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you treating the matter seriously. It's still just the one question, but no point beating a dead horse if it won't drink. Or however the expression goes. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (and no sarcasm intended, I do appreciate the effort). 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. have you tried any of the sources or External links for this article? That's where you're likely to find more expert explanation. Then you could come back and make the article clearer for all the other readers who may not understand why. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely in the 'no definition provided' camp. I find this article infuriating; at first I thought it was a prank. Apparently, there's just an arbitrary date before which a printed book is called an 'incunable' and after which it is not; and there's no discernable reason or criteria for the distinction apart from date. Thanks and thanks and ever thanks to the poster accusing us of willful obstinacy who him/herself refused to entertain a perfectly valid and well-explained question. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I was actually just now exploring other alternatives and found a helpful article on Britannica. Assuming we can all generally agree to that definition, I'd propose changes to the lede such as "In typography..." or "In the history of printing, an incunable is/refers to books printed at the in the earliet periods of printing in Europe, before 1500. This limit was first set by Hadrianus Junius and the year itself is arbitrary, but has since become convention" or something to that effect. Not worried about the language, just putting it into the context of the people who use and uphold this convention, as well as some explanation (or lack thereof) for why the date is used. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D075:AF77:6AC6:9E86 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the text has now been changed here. Is that now sufficiently clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep that was me. Sorry about the chaning IP but on a shared computer. It's a small change but I think it makes a big difference. Could still use some historical info in the lede about who created the taxonomy and the further chronology, but couldn't settle on decent phrasing and not an expert, so left it as it is. Thanks. 2600:8800:2382:E200:6D7B:9065:7A8B:1598 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IP 2600, you might find it much easier to get articles improved, or to improve them yourself, if you registered as a user with a recognisable user name. Perhaps incunabula are the only things you're interested in. It's hard to tell. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)