# Talk:John Ogilby

Does anyone known which Farringdon this page should be linling to from Plate #79? MRSC • Talk 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, the maps are strip maps leading from one place to the other.  Following a straight line from Oxford to Bristol via Malmesbury on Google Earth you see a Faringdon on the line which is what I have changed the page to.  There are numerous spelling mistakes in the Atlas or which I have a copy, I could try and scan the page sometime if you are interested and feel the article could do with another example.  Rob 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed a couple of redlinks on 19 October by correcting what I assumed were transcription/typing errors.  Perhaps I should have left the incorrect spelling and used the pipe trick?  CarolGray 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Ogilby's America? I have read it was in its day the most complete atlas of North and South America.

I have created a redirect article to the Britannia section, Britannia (1675 atlas). I have marked it as "with possibilities" since there is already enough material in this article to populate it. The only question really is whether a WP:SPLIT would be appropriate: for the moment I think not but if the section continues to develop, that could change.
BTW, the somewhat clunky disambiguation string "1676 atlas" is needed because there is also a series of atlases from 1720 called Britannia Depicta. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to close this: on 7 August, I did an article split. This one is now exclusively a biography; the atlas content is now in a new article, Britannia (atlas). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a good-faith edit by User:Scruppy Two because I suspect that they are correcting what looks like a mis-spelling in the article. I suggest that they need to go back to the source, report Ogilby's spelling as he wrote it (for ex, Brecon should be shown as "Brecknock"). He wrote "Llanebeder vunneth", which needs a more evidenced translation. See his map. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This is not to say that the current version is correct either, it probably is not, just that the change needs evidence. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that I have time to look at modern map, I agree with Scruppy Two and will reinstate their edit. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this article could achieve GA with a few more citations. So I have tagged to obvious ones that will stand in the way. Let the citation hunt begin! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The "lottery winnings" story comes from Ogilby himself: he told it to his biographer John Aubrey. Ereira considers it too good to be true and suggests that it actually came from Ogilby's (suspected) natural father, the 6th Lord Ogilvie of Airlie (or at least so says the FT book review). 
P D A Harvey's review review Ereira's book in the Antiquaries Journal repeats Aubrey's version without any reference to Ereira's doubts about its veracity.
So would it be best to draw a veil over that whole episode of his life? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 2023 (UTC)
I did this because it is WP:OFFTOPIC for a biography article, but we definitely don't want to lose it. Moving the content to a new article solves two problems at once. This article certainly needs content on "Britannia" but it needs to be proportionate for a biography article. Conversely, its significance in the history of cartography must not be understated. Advice welcome! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed the new article as simply Ogilby's "Britannia" because it is already more than just a list of plates. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Subsequently, I moved the article again to the conventional disambiguation style, Britannia (atlas) . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no "original" text by Aesop in Greek for Ogilby's version to be "five times longer than". I suggest going back to your source to check what he really said. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Whoops, yes, an embarrassingly silly error. I have revised, is it satisfactory now? (Ereira says 80 pages was the customary length, I think he is referring to a 1646 edition used in English schools but he doesn't say so explicitly so neither can we.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@JMF:, I'm afraid the correction in the text is reprehensibly ambiguous with its talk of 'the usual editions'. A quick glance at Ogilby's work itself (available online) reveals voluminous side-notes, some of which quote the Phaedrus Latin version - but that's only one of his possible sources. What I take as Ereira's telegraphese strikes me as supremely silly. Ogilby expands his sources by set design and a description of in what ways he is doing so, and why, would be far more helpful. For over a decade, using two editorial names, I did a lot of work on individual fables but only came by Ogilby's work very late in the process. For that reason I didn't study it as closely as I should have done. And I know nothing of the Latin (school?) collections that he might have consulted. If he doesn't cite them in the notes to his version of the fables, then we're bound as WP editors not to make unsourced conjectures or comparisons. And if Ereira sheds no useful light on the question, then perhaps he should be ignored. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have just removed the remark about the number of pages as it is actually of very little significance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed! Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)