Talk:Getty Tondal
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laughsassin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Article name[edit]
I understand the renaming, yet it looks somewhat awkward on the page. Might Les Visions du chevalier Tondal (Getty Museum) be acceptable? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- The trouble is (& I'm not happy with the name) that "Les Visions du chevalier Tondal", though correct, is much less well known than the Latin name for the original, or the English. Getty Tondal might be better " or Getty Visions of the Knight Tondal, which is what they call it themselves most of the time - or Getty Visions of Tondal, or Visions of Tondal (Getty Museum. I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any of the red links are better. Since nobody had any objection to there, I'll rename it to the first mentioned, since that at least also looks like something a reader might enter to search for it. — Sebastian 11:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- After 3 years you should have raised the matter again. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? This was an obviously uncontroversial name change. Regardless, even if it you were right, your message is counterproductive. Remember that we're all volunteers here. Bossing well-intended people around makes contributing to Wikipedia unappealing to those that we would like to have as editors. Next time, please remember thanking others for their well intended edits. That said, thank you for caring for this article. — Sebastian 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be a jerk please! Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- After 3 years you should have raised the matter again. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Any of the red links are better. Since nobody had any objection to there, I'll rename it to the first mentioned, since that at least also looks like something a reader might enter to search for it. — Sebastian 11:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The trouble is (& I'm not happy with the name) that "Les Visions du chevalier Tondal", though correct, is much less well known than the Latin name for the original, or the English. Getty Tondal might be better " or Getty Visions of the Knight Tondal, which is what they call it themselves most of the time - or Getty Visions of Tondal, or Visions of Tondal (Getty Museum. I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully available manuscript[edit]
An editor insists on writing the text "The manuscript is fully available online" in the lead section. I removed it once because
- It is not fully available; clicking on "Page through the book", at least for me, the display only a selection of pages beginning with 6V, 7[R], 10V,... Even the displayed pages are at a resolution that is so low that their usefulness is severely limited.
- Even if this manuscript is available online, I don't think it is per se important enough to be included in the lead section.
Despite my explanation in the subject line, this was immediately reverted by the same editor. I don't enjoy spending my free time with edit wars, so I will just leave after having said what needed to be said. — Sebastian 20:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)