Disputatio:Giraldus Cambrensis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Hibernica ~ Hiberniae[fontem recensere]

I see that our bashful friend has changed the title of Giraldus's work from Topographia Hibernica to Topographica Hiberniae. In this regard, the world's opinion concurs: the former term (when searched for as <"Topographia Hibernica" cambrensis>) gets 2000 Google-hits, but the latter term gets 2700. That the distribution of hits is so close, however, makes one wonder if the title is really Giraldus's. Was it instead bestowed after his time, reflecting variation that has suited the preferences of posterior generations? If so, Topographia Hibernica, the style using an adjective, might be the more classical way of putting it. IacobusAmor 11:58, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our anonymous editor cites no source for the change. Well, I think I wrote this; I certainly had a source for Topographia Hibernica, and you have proved that such sources exist. Unless someone wants to come along and say "Modern research shows that Giraldus's preferred title was ...", with evidence, I think for grammatical reasons we should revert to the form we prefer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. In the absence of news from, you might as well go ahead and do it! IacobusAmor 12:42, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. My source (for all the book titles) was H. E. Butler's introduction to Giraldus's autobiography: the book is already cited on the page., come and write a page about Topographia Hibernica! There'll be plenty of room on such a page for discussing alternative titles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capsam removi quia ...[fontem recensere]

  1. It didn't work. It's good to leave pages looking better than before, not worse.
  2. It contained bad information (notably, unless I'm mistaken, a portrait that wasn't of the subject)
  3. Above all, infoboxes about pre-modern lives, and infoboxes about writers, offer uncertain and unverifiable information and make it look certain; they are therefore a Bad Thing for an encyclopedia. They encourage readers to believe that things are known when, in nearly every case, exploration and discussion is needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 24 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]