Talk:Thomas à Kempis

message: I guess that à is French.
Could you explain why, how and where else it is used?
--Error 4 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
: It should not be used, because it is wrong. It is Latin in stead of French, and it means: coming from. Thomas a Kempis is the right Latin name of Thomas van Kempen. The French are using his name correctly by the way... May I be so bold to change it here? Groucho NL (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: à

message: *Support as the nominator. Aecis praatpaal 17:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. Name with accent is more common. And it is not the French preposition "à"; the Latin preposition "a" (the short form of "ab") was written with an accent too, in certain periods (see eg. , page 11). This older notation seems to have survived only in the name Thomas à Kempis. Eugene van der Pijll 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the illustration at http://www.nndb.com/people/824/000094542/, which has a latin caption, with the accent. Eugene van der Pijll 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: This article seems to have more pictures than it needs. Either more text should be added, or some pictures should be removed. Any thoughts? --Entoaggie09 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 25 July  and 8 August  seem to be the favourite death dates.  Anyone know which is correct, and why?  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death - 25 July or 8 August?

message: I removed Vera Sapientia Or True Wisdom (reprinted ed., appeared 1904),  attributed by Rev. Byrne to Thomas à Kempis. I cannot find any reliable references stating that Vera Sapientia is a work written by Thomas à Kempis. So I removed it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vera Sapientis 

message: I just checked the list of saints in Church of England, but he's not there, so I removed that from the article section Veneration. Reading his book De Imitatio Christi, he gets so much of Christian ethics backwards and upside down, so my personal prediction is that we don't need to explicitly await a sudden canonization - he won't pass the tests. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is found on the calendar of the PECUSA Book of Common prayer. Rwflammang (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: His day is 24 July. Rwflammang (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not venerated in Church of England

message: It now reads:
Thomas à Kempis, C.R.S.A. (Thomas van Kempen or Thomas Hemerken or Haemerken, litt. "Hammerkin" (small hammer)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.160 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  added "Hammerkin" and set "small hammer" in brackets 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus that policy compels us to keep the WP:COMMONNAME in this case, even if it is, in some sense, "incorrect". (non-admin closure)  Colin M (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas à Kempis →  – See the related discussion from 2005 -- the 'a' here is a Latin preposition, not a French one. Demoxica (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 April 2021 

message: Too many images interfering with readability.  Please remove a few. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: The pub date of The Imitation of Christ in this biography differs from the one in the article about the book. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to 1418 in parity with our other articles and current sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You realize there was no "pub date" as such? It circulated in manuscript copies for the first 50 years or so. The misleading infobox header should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the infobox in the book article? The Catholic Encyclopedia (only an example) says "It was first published anonymously in A.D. 1418." Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry. What do you, or the CE, think "publishing" meant in 1418 exactly? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the history of the work.  I think you’re getting unnecessarily hung up on the definition of a word that is used loosely in common parlance.  The word is used correctly here, no matter what publishing entailed in 1418.  Most words like this do not have strict, narrow definitions, and are used to help the reader understand when a work was introduced as literature to an audience. To publish, as in to prepare and issue for readership.  The word is used correctly and appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You used it first. In my experience, good RS don't use it of medieval works, and we should not. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the alternatives you propose? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pub date