Talk:Manuscript

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Writing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tul13791. Peer reviewers: Jvaughan219.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Cleanup[edit]

I have placed the "cleanup-rewrite" tag on the page since the article is very poorly written, especially lower down. It's actually quite shocking, considering how important and oft-referenced the topic doubtlessly is. Much of this reads like a very average undergraduate essay (read the section on "Bibles" if in doubt). Sentences that hint at the pedestrian origins of this article abound ("In "Introduction to Manuscript Studies", Clemens and Graham define pricking and ruling perfectly"). I suggest a heavy cleanup, if only to remove the unskillful use of language ("From ancient texts to medieval maps, anything written down for study would have been done with manuscripts.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.123 (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?[edit]

describe the purpose of the manuscript, "why should WE redesign instruction"?

Question[edit]

The easyist way to find original manuscripts is The European Library. This library portal gives integrated access to the combined resources of Europe's national libraries. What do you think - Should we refer to this portal? Fleurstigter 09:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS or ms?[edit]

I am sure that "ms" is the standard abbreviation, as used by the British Library, but no-one seems to have challenged MS and MSS in the lead since they were added three years ago. See both the lead, and the section which refers to MS and MSS as "traditional" abbreviations and ms and mss as "also accepted". Any thoughts? I thought about being [[WP:BOLD] but decided not to change such long-standing text without consultation. PamD 10:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MSS is the plural. MS is very common, especially as part of a cataloguing "name"/shelfmark, when it is used (invariably I think) by the BL, like the majority of libraries. Their glossary seems a tad misleading as to their own practice, frankly. So I'd leave it, except to add the lc as an option. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of intro[edit]

"A document should be at least 75 years old to be considered a manuscript." The source does not confirm this, and the claim seems silly on commonsense grounds. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removed - actually the ref does support it (first line), but this is a local definition for the purposes of that organization. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and additions[edit]

I added an Islamic Manuscript history section with the subsections production history, Islamic scripts, and common genres of Islamic manuscripts (religious ad literature). I also added three images; Qur'anic Kufic script, Blue Qu'ran, and Book of the Fixed Stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tul13791 (talk • contribs)

I tweaked the layout a bit – thanks for the added content! --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Quran Kufic script.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]