Talk:Sixto-Clementine Vulgate

Lack of context?

@BeenAroundAWhile: could you explain in details why you find that this article lacks some context? Thanks. :: (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a brief explanation as to what Vulgate means so the reader doesn't have to look it up. I've just done it. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be best if this definition is not removed, since Vulgate is an unfamiliar term to many people, often being confused with vulgar.. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I really feel like this explanation make the summary feel more heavy than it should, and that anyone can know what the Vulgate is simply by clicking on the hyperlink. Veverve (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. The purpose of writing is to communicate. We are not writing for experts; we are writing for anybody who wants knowledge. It's best to put the knowledge where seekers can find it; we can't have people clicking all over the place in order to find the definition of the key word in any article. Vulgate is certainly not a term that is in everybody's vocabulary, not even in most university graduates'. I hope this explains my stand satisfactorily. Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing by Jmar67

• (the Nestle-Aland) OK, if that is common in the literature, but I would not say "the Merriam-Webster". The article first uses it as an adjective. Jmar67 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67:It is common to use Nestle-Aland as a noun. As a sidenote, would you not say "let me check this word in my Merriam-Webster."? Also, thanks for the editing so far! Veverve (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I could use "my" to mean my personal copy but not "the", at least not in this context. Referring to it as a source, I would just say MW. BTW: I have experienced GA and FA reviews where I have spent considerable time editing and some kind soul (third party) later essentially wipes out my changes with his/her own ideas. Who knows, maybe I am already the guilty one. Jmar67 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• (Quentin) Why do you reference by chapter (and thereby repeat the chapter headings each time)? The existing refs are inconsistent with respect to the use of quotation marks. Also, "Chapitre" is often spelled "Chapite". And "Sixtine" in the French should be capitalized per the source. Jmar67 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I reference chapters in case the source becomes unavailable and the reader uses an edition which has a different page numbering. The translation of the title of the chapter is between brackets because this is how it is in the template Cite books. I fixed the "chapite" typo. "Sixtine" is not capitalized in French. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It is capitalized in Quentin. See discussion of Committee. It is strange vs. Clementine. (Why do you not capitalize it in French?) Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed capitalized in Quentin, and so is "Clémentine"; my bad. As far as I know, it should not be capitalized because they are adjectives and those are never capitalized apart from exceptional cases (e.g. sometimes nationalities). I will capitalize according to Quentin. Veverve (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

German is similar in this respect (lowercase as adjective). Jmar67 (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• (viz., that is to say) There is no chance of confusion here, and it is superfluous. Jmar67 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Leuven Vulgate

Do you intend to leave the reference to a Polish article? It shows in red and is distracting. Maybe just on first mention. Jmar67 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I will fix this, leave it to me. Veverve (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

now, we just need to get rid of those interlanguage links. Veverve (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Codex Carafianus

Are you sure that isn't Carafanus? Jmar67 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I am 100% sure. If you want another source than Quentin and Gerace, here it is. Veverve (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Then are we sure the cardinal was named Carafa? I would like to know how the "i" crept in. Jmar67 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

We are also 100% sure of it. I do not know why it is "Carafa" but "Carafianus". Veverve (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

emendate

Sounds terrible, although it is accepted, which surprises me. I would prefer the simpler "emend/emended", analogous to "amend". Jmar67 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok for the verb "emend". Veverve (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Italic titles

The article and book titles (especially links) should be consistent with respect to italicization. Possibly only the Latin names. Jmar67 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you tell what the problem is with examples? Veverve (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have italicized the VS article title. My premise is that the Latin expressions should be italicized but not the informal English designations. But I can't keep the infobox template from italicizing SCV. The "italic title=no" parameter is not working as documented. I will investigate. Jmar67 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Any news? Veverve (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot determine the problem and will report it. Thanks for the reminder. Jmar67 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I asked User:Gerda Arendt for advice. She in turn asked User:RexxS, who created a new version of the template as "/sandbox2" and applied it to the file. I will ask that the main template be updated accordingly. Thank you to all. Jmar67 (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Rouillé

I don't see that in the ref, but I think it would be clearer as "The name of Clement VIII was added when the edition was printed on the press of..." Jmar67 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is less clear than what is currently written. Veverve (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article title English but Vulgata Sixtina and Nova Vulgata Latin? Could the title be Vulgata Clementina, which now redirects here? Jmar67 (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of changing Vulgata Sixtina to "Sixtine Vulgate" per WP:COMMONNAME and have requested a page move.

The Nova Vulgata has no other name apart from its Latin name. "New Latin Vulgate" is never used. Veverve (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Sixto-Clementine Vulgate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• WP:LEAD says the lede should have 4 paragraphs maximum. Looking at this one, I think it would be quite easy to merge this into 3. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think the lede sentence could do with being expanded a little. Imagine not knowing this was a christianity topic - could you tell what this article was about? I'd that "The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is a Latin translation of the bible from 1592." or similar. Then you can go into details about what the Vulgate is, and the Sixtine version. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Could potentially link Sixtus V Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Words like "promulgated" should be avoided. I realise we aren't the simple english wiki, but I had to look the word up. we could use "popularlised" in it's place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• As an FYI - we generally don't need to use citation in the lede. The information cited should be in the body of the article and as such doesn't need to be cited twice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oxford Vulgate New Testament seems to redirect to Vulgate. I'd remove the link, rather than duplicate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my GAN! I have fixed most things. However:

"promulgated" cannot be replace by "popularised". Promulgation (canon law) is "To put into effect as a regulation." ([1]). It is a from Latin calque.

Oxford Vulgate New Testament: the redirect now says it is "a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject."

Veverve (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Vulgate New Testament now redirects to the article Oxford Vulgate, because I wanted to reduce the amount of text in the Vulgate article since a while. Veverve (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

General

• I'm not sure you need two see alsos in the first section. Especially as it's the same article. I'd just use the first one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• There's a number of external links in the text. We can't use them like this. For instance The Sixtine Vulgate prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590; it was "accompanied by a Bull" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC) - you can however use a Bull, if suitable, for example. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I actually think the above doesn't particularly help at all, could just say when it was created, like "The Sixtine Vulgate was prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590;[7] Sixtus V declared it was to be considered the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. - as I'm assuming that wasn't a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just as a quick FYI - references live after punctuation generally. "of its sales[7][8] and," for example. No reason not to move to the end of the sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Theres a few paragraph issues - should merge a few of these together. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Any reason why - Bartholomew Miranda, Andrea Salvener, Antonius Agellius, Robert Bellarmine, Bartholomew Valverde, Lelio Landi, Petrus Morinus, and A. Rocca - A. Rocca doesn't use the full name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to do a few things to cut down the usage of quotes in the article. We have copyviolation issues with just quoting everything. Revert anything that no longer makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• There's an instance of WP:REFBOMB we should avoid - [1][47][26][24][44]. Three maximum for sourcing like this. Hunt: just take the best ones. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• As much as it might be good to have a table of changes, I don't think it's suitable in this case. It's a non-definitive list, and is just a few minor word changes. Might be better to have some examples in prose instead. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I checked your whole lists.

"Theres a few paragraph issues - should merge a few of these together."

Where?

I do not understand what you are trying to say when you write:

I actually think the above doesn't particularly help at all, could just say when it was created, like "The Sixtine Vulgate was prepared under Pope Sixtus V was published in 1590;[7] Sixtus V declared it was to be considered the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. - as I'm assuming that wasn't a quote?"

So, is the following a quote from someone, or not? It's currently in speech marks, but doesn't really say who said it: "It may be added that the first edition to contain the names of both the Popes [Sixtus V and Clement VIII] upon the title page is that of 1604. The title runs: 'Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.'"

It is indeed a quote. I changed the paragraph so that it is clearer. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"As much as it might be good to have a table of changes, I don't think it's suitable in this case."

I am in favor of keeping it.

Veverve (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a non-defining list. I just don't see what we gain from it being in a table format, rather than just written in text. It is just a series of examples, after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think it is clearer inside a table since it is a pretty long list. Moreover, this list exists since the very first version of the page and I think people are used to it since then.

Also, you have not explained what your sentence ("I actually think the above [...] wasn't a quote?") meant. Veverve (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, something having previously been on a page isn't a reason to keep it. If it were a full list of things that had been changed, I'd be more inclined to keep the table in the article. As it is, it's just a cruft table for wording differences that is only a series of examples. I don't really see what we gain by it's inclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

How would you present the changes if not in a table? Veverve (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

- I would just use some of them in text. For example:

The Clementine edition of the Vulgate differs from the Sistine edition in about 3,000 places according to Carlo Vercellone, James Hastings, Eberhard Nestle, Kenyon, and Bruce M. Metzger; 4,900 according to Michael Hetzenauer; and about 5,000 according to Kurt and Barbara Aland. Some examples of text changes include in Exodus 11 where "constituit te" (11:14), "venerant" (11:16), "et eripuit" (11:22), and "liberavit" (11:25) is replaced by "te constituit", "liberavit", "eripuit", and "cognovit" respectively.

That's how I'd do it, if it was important to show differences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I did it the way you suggested. I also added back the Nova Vulgata section to put the info in a more logical place within the article. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • I'm going to do some edits to the article, to see if I can limit some of the issues I've seen outside of those I've commented on. Please see some constructive criticism above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, cool. Thanks for putting up with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject. It's not perfect, but I think the article now meets the GA Criteria. Well done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

More sources to use

The references given here on p. 86, on note 516, could be used to improve the article. Those can also be used to improve Sixtine Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)