Disputatio:Hortus Eystettensis
Liber pictus[fontem recensere]
Mi Andreas, vidi hanc paginam ad librum pictum ligatam esse. Sed 'liber pictus' hic non est 'liber pictus', ut puto. Fortasse necesse est nobis novam paginam de libris pictis (vel libris illuminatis?) creare?--Xaverius 08:03, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- Primo passu redirectionem, quae nos a "libro picto" ad "librum nubeculatum" misit, delevi; libri enim picti non omnes nubeculati sunt. Gratias Iacobo agimus si nexum in hanc paginam more suo inseruerit, errorem ita patefaciens. Certe potes paginam "Liber pictus" creare! Salve optime, mi Xaveri! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome! One of the reasons I insert links is to help keep the vocabulary straight! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- Would then liber pictus reflect en:Illuminated_manuscript or would it be something wider?--Xaverius 11:43, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if you're writing the article(s), you get to decide. I have used "Categoria:Libri picti" for all books notable for their images, whether printed or manuscript. But it doesn't have to stay like that (the numbers are increasing), and anyway that doesn't have to correspond precisely with the article of the same title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- Would then liber pictus reflect en:Illuminated_manuscript or would it be something wider?--Xaverius 11:43, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome! One of the reasons I insert links is to help keep the vocabulary straight! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)