Talk:Vatican Library

message: It's unclear what the manuscript category header "Alternative" means. Can this be clarified?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.79.9 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alternative"?

message: What about the aleppo codex (was complete until '47) and the Leningrad codex?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binyamin Goldstein (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest Nearly Complete Bible?

message: This text seems to circulate on the web:
:"The Vatican has a 5,000 square foot library that was sealed in 1215, with specific instructions that it was not to be opened until February 19, 2010."
I abstain from putting it in the article body since I cannot corroborate its veracity. If anyone knows more about this it would be most interesting though. --meco 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like utter myth. 1215 was the Lateran period when the books were kept in the Lateran palace. I seriously doubt they even had 5000sqft of books in 1215 and if they did they would be worth such a fortune that no one would lock them away.  -- Stbalbach 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealed off library since 1215

message: I have added a link to the treasures of the library of Vatican City. The library shows these treasures via The European Library. For all clarity - Vatican City is a so-called basic participant of The European Library. Please let me know if you think this link is inappropriate. Thank you. Fleurstigter 11:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: The Knights of Columbus maintain a microfilm archive of the majority of the works in the Vatican Library.  To my knowledge, this microfilm database (maintained at the Saint Louis University Pius library), is the only such "outside the Vatican" collection.  As I live in St. Louis, if any other Wikipedians reading this would like access to any of those documents, please feel free to contact me directly, and I'll go look something up if you want.  :) --Elonka 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Louis Vatican Film Library - research help available

message: Under WP:COMMON the move just performed is clearly wrong. "Vatican Library" has about 159,000 ghits versus 4,870 for "Apostolic Library", most of which (2,840) are actually for "Vatican Apostolic Library", the literal rendering of the Latin official title. Many others are for an American Evangelical website called the "Apostolic Library".  Their own English web homepage uses "Vatican Library".   Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the move to "Apostolic Library" was inappropriate.  The clear common name for this topic is "Vatican Library". If anyone disagrees, they can file a request at WP:RM. --Elonka 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of this article should be at least 'Vatican Apostolic Library', since 'Vatican Library' is only an informal designation. Ausonia (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:COMMONNAME, we choose article titles based on what the general public would most easily recognize.  However, alternative versions of the name can (and should) be placed in the article lead paragraph. --Elonka 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is formal enough for they themselves, and every scholarly source, to use it. Only badly-translated Italian tourist copy uses anything else. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong name 

message: There's an article about the Vatican Library in the New Yorker. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker article 

message: I have just created a new section in the article: "Notes" intended to split up a long reference so quotes can be listed separately. The note about the statue though would be much improved if anyone has access to the full English version of the source referenced by the original Editor of the source, or if they are able to provide a translation. I am unsure of the policy on editors translating work, or I would provide a link here for reference. CSJJ104 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note in Italian 

message: There seems to be some ambiguity about certain facts. Firts of all, when the library was exactly established; there have been several dates thrown around, and I have sourced on that I found. Also, who the first, or just earliest, librarians are. There seems to be some cloudiness between the "director of the library", "librarian" and "Cardinal librarian", these may not all the synonyms.
Also, the idea for the library seems to be regarded as Pope Nicholas V, but the actual founding of a public Library at the Vatican was done by Sixtus IV. SOme clarity here should be established. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some ambiguity in sources 

message: Is this really notable enough to warrant a whole section? As it stands it could possibly be included in the History section, unless there are more details I am missing about the event, or there are more notable thefts which may be included? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it can be integrated into the history section. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thefts section 

message: Reading over the content, there are lots of facts, but they don't flow together very nicely. There needs to be some meat to stitch together all these facts to make it a more pleasant read. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And the sections librarians and staff should be joined into one section. At the end of the article maybe, so we cdon't have a huge table in the middle of the text? --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's starting to look better already. Thanks . --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads kind of disjointed 

message: The Manuscripts section list could be significantly expanded to cover more entries in the corresponding category. If someone's up for it, it could be split into its own article: List of manuscripts in the Vatican Library. This could be modeled after List of manuscripts in the Cotton library. I've placed a split template to inform editors of such a possibility. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this suggestion, but have no experience or knowledge in creating lists. Do we think this article benefit from some a shorter list remaining, or is a link in the See also section enough? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NOTCATALOG I have some doubts about the Cotton library list article. It was listed for speedy deletion immediately after creation and only kept because a more formal deletion process, AfD, was suggested - this never happened though. Very likely because this article doesn't get a lot of attention: it gets only about 5 page views on most days. So whoever wants to create a corresponding article for the manuscripts in the Vatican library should be aware that it might be deleted. I believe there should be more articles rather than less on Wikipedia, so I would not vote for the deletion, but I am not sure it would survive. There is already a category, and it might be better to add the category to all the manuscripts listed here.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run that would probably be advisable, this subject has a lot of material to expand the article. At this particular point in time, I am not sure it would be necessary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscripts list 

message: In this article there's no mention of Giovanni Tortelli, the first Vatican Librarian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Tortelli
Since I'm not familiar with wikipedia editing, I can only suggest this information to be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.92.40.88 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giovanni Tortelli 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI!  17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem