Talk:Saint Petersburg Bede

Untitled
In Anglo-Saxon Studies, this is invariably called the Leningrad Bede, and then, after 1989, the St. Peterburg Bede. I've worked with it a fair bit professionally, and have never heard it called the "Leningrad manuscript".


 * I agree, this should be at either Leningrad Bede or St. Peterburg Bede. My preference would be for Leningrad since that is the name that people would encounter in the majority of the works out there, however I would be just as happy with St. Petersburg (redirects are cheap). If no one objects in the next few days we can make this move. (By the way, you need at least three "~" to sign your name.) Dsmdgold 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't know that one had to wait and made the change. I can change it back if necessary. dpod


 * When renaming articles, use the "Move" tab, it will preserve the article edit history and automatically create redirects from the old name. -- Stbalbach 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to wait, but when something comes up on the talk page, my practice is to wait a little while before instituting changes,as a courtesy, so that the original editor can make his or her opinions known. Other editors have different approaches. Dsmdgold 13:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As the one who created the article at the old title, the move is fine with me. I'm glad to see the sad little stub I started has grown and improved so much. Everyking 14:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Move
Because the page was moved manually, and not by using the "Move" tab, it will now require an admin to intervene and try and sort it out. I will place a move request with an admin. Please do not move pages manually! See instructions on how to rename pages. Thank You. -- Stbalbach 16:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I've moved it. Dsmdgold 16:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that was quick. Had me confused for a second /:) -- Stbalbach 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now the mover should update some of the what links here links Johnbod 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazon link picture
I don't think we're supposed to link to commercial book sellers. But we can use book cover images as fair use, so long as the book is mentioned in the article in some meaningful way. A clean image can be seen here: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0802839193.01._AA353_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg -- you can make it bigger or smaller by changing the "353" number (ie. 553 would be a lot bigger). Then save to disk, upload, etc.. --- Stbalbach 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the book is irelevant, it is just the cover. I guess it meets fair use criteria - they are trying to publicise the thing anyway. I'm a bit reluctant to upload it to Commons; but it seems to be the only online image. Johnbod 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is such a basic cover, it might even qualify for PD-art}. Can't do Fair Use on commons.wikipedia.org, just en.wikipedia.org -- Stbalbach 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt the designer would agree there! Unlike the MS painter he is still around. Ok I'll do a fair use here. Johnbod
 * Oh, well it's not a bad cover :) I changed the wording to make it less Amazon-specific. I had this same problem with the Guibert of Nogent article and just kind of worked it in as fair use and included the book ISBN. -- Stbalbach 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks - as you will now see, I in fact just found a pic of the whole page that Google images could not reach, tucked away on the RNL site (I had looked before) but so tiny & blurry its worth keeping the book cover I think. Johnbod 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)