Talk:Mammotrectus super Bibliam

A fact from Mammotrectus super Bibliam appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Mammotrectus super Bibliam, a guide book to understanding the Bible, was popular in the 15th century, but was criticized in the 16th century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

Wikipedia

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misspelling

The list of ways in which the title was misspelled seems to lead off with the correct spelling.PurpleChez (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not well phrased. The reference actually says:

"Even the title of the book was uncertain. Marchesinus names it Mammotrectus or Mammetractus, which he explains as 'led by a pedagogue'; but a current form of the name was Mammothreptus, which was interpreted as 'brought up by one's grandmother'."

I have brought the article into line with this.John M Brear (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mammotrectus super Bibliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The article goes out of its way to state several times that the book was criticised, but never makes clear what the core points of criticism of the various critics actually were. At present the article reads as if we should be impressed by the names mentioned and just take on faith that this book is no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.20.136 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]