Talk:Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 2, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

A fact from Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the title page of Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum shows an eagle atop a globe flanked by serpents (pictured), which symbolizes worldly triumph?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum.

This page contains text translated from other articles

Praise by the publisher[edit]

The article notes that the publisher praises (the usefulness of) the book he is trying to sell. This is similar to a present-day publisher's catalog stating that a book is useful. Is this noteworthy? --Lambiam 08:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. BorgQueen (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promptuarii -> Promptuarium[edit]

I moved the page to Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum. Promptuarii is genitive ("of the promptuary"), which only makes sense if "prima pars" is included ("first part of the promptuary"). Lesgles (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity[edit]

Several of these portraits are used in Wikipedia articles as THE portraits of historical figures, but I'm wondering if that's a good idea. Unless these portraits are actually based on real coins or something from their respective times, they're essentially phantasies and I don't think they should be used in other articles at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd give something like this a pass, since most of the figures depicted in this book don't seem to have any earlier artistic depictions. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Guillaume Rouillé's emblem

Henry II of France

... that the title page of Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum shows an eagle atop a globe flanked by serpents, (pictured) which symbolizes worldly triumph? Source: Natalie Zemon Davis, “Publisher Guillaume Rouillé, Businessman and Humanist,” in R. J. Schoeck, ed., Editing Sixteenth-Century Texts, see 93-95 pages.
- ALT: ... that the first Latin edition of Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum was dedicated to Henry II of France (pictured) while its first Italian edition was dedicated to his wife, Catherine de' Medici? Source: Andreoli, Ilaria (2006). "La storia 'in soldoni': il Promptuaire des medalles di Guillaume Rouillé (History 'in a nutshell': Guillaume Rouillé's Promptuaire des medalles)". In Rozzo, Ugo; Gabriele, Mino (eds.). Storia per parole e per immagini [History in words and pictures] (in Italian). Udine: Forum. p. 236. Retrieved 2022-12-29 – via Academia.edu. The PDF can be downloaded too.
  - Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ongoing Nakba

5x expanded by BorgQueen (talk). Self-nominated at 22:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @BorgQueen: Good article. AGF on italian sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Vaticidalprophet 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see you aren't listed as having any other GAs! (Is that true or is the bot just struggling?) This is good work; at the moment I have only a few notes. I reserve the right to comment further, but this is all that comes up so far:

Keep an eye on MOS:LQ for quotes -- some use logical quotation, some use internal quotation.
- Done I've fixed it I believe. Please let me know if I missed any. BorgQueen (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books link isn't really ideal -- their previews vary by individual IP and geographic location, so you can't assume anything you see can be seen by anyone else. The Latin version is on IA, which is a guaranteed link.
- Done All Google Books links have been replaced. BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except the link to a source (Dubois de Groër, 1996) and the link to a Spanish edition of Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum in the external links section. Neither of these are available on the IA site. BorgQueen (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, any knowledge of if any of its versions are on Wikisource somewhere? If it is, that's what we should preferentially use. (If not, maybe poke people.)
- Wikisource doesn't have any, as far as I know. BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As for your suggestion to "poke people" ( ...with a red hot poker? ) I really don't know what to do about that. I'm not familiar with how things work on Wikisource and don't know anyone there. I sincerely hope it's not one of the GA requirements. BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, not a requirement! But many smaller projects have centralized discussion areas in a sense enwiki doesn't (I used to edit Wikivoyage a lot, where basically all of projectspace is one page linked on the sidebar, and have a generally similar impression of most of the other non-Wikipedias), and are still looking to add to their content base. There may be a centralized area for suggestions on e.g. Latin Wikisource. But this is really just thinking-out-loud wondering if we have the text on a WMF wiki somewhere -- IA is definitely fine. Vaticidalprophet 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the infobox needs the whole long title as the first thing you see, if it's commonly known by a short one. This made me pause -- some of the sources seem to imply it's either generally known by the Whole Huge Title, or by the French shortened title only. Given the nature of the sources this isn't perfectly easy for me to tease out, though. Is our title...right? If it is, that's probably what the infobox should use as the primary title.
- Done I agree using the full title in the infobox is unnecessary and overwhelming to the reader. I don't think using the shortened French title is a good idea; Rouillé dedicated the Latin edition to Henry II of France, the king of his country, and the Italian edition to his wife. He probably didn't regard the French vernacular edition as 'the main edition', so to speak. BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing that really makes me pause: is this all the legacy we have? Do no other modern scholars of rare books discuss it? It intuitively seems like there'd be more discussion of a contemporaneously popular 16th-century book than our article records.

Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @Vaticidalprophet: I'm still working on the Reception section, trying to find a few more sources to make it comprehensive. Meanwhile, all sections of the article have been slightly expanded thanks to an excellent source (Cunnally, 1999) I had found on the Internet Archive. Please feel free to share more bits of constructive criticism if you have any. BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Vaticidalprophet It seems to me that the Reception section is finally presentable to the reader, having been nicely expanded and copyedited. Please let me know what you think. BorgQueen (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's looking great! I've been following the work from afar (have a couple other on- and off-wiki obligations), but in general, I'm comfortable saying the article is GA-level now. There's nothing that looks suspicious in the sources either, nor can I trivially find any other sources to add, though it might be worth looking at expansion again if you take this to FA. (Sounds daunting, I know, but -- the GA-FA jump is not large for books.) Thanks for your work on this article, and I'm happy to see you get your first GA. Vaticidalprophet 22:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet Thank you for your notes. It's not the poor bot's fault as I indeed don't have any other GA; I do have one former FA but I wasn't really focusing on content-building until very recently. Good point on the legacy section; I'm going to dig something up through the wiki library. As for the title, I've just checked the German, French, Latin and Russian Wikipedia articles and they all currently use the shortened Latin title (the Latin Wikipedia version being shortened a little more!) -- but I'll check the sources and see if they use another name more often. As for the quotes and Google Books links, I'll work on fixing them up now. BorgQueen (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.