This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 22:48, 8 February 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject British Library}}, {{WikiProject English Royalty}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 22:48, 8 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject British Library}}, {{WikiProject English Royalty}}.)
A fact from Royal manuscripts, British Library appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
Commas are ok if needed. Here it is necessary to indicated that "Royal" is a title or name for the collection rather than just an ordinary adjective. "comma place" is very common in titles! Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about just Royal Manuscripts? The word manuscripts would be capitalised because this is a proper name, being a particular collection. See A Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology for an example of this usage: "Among the many other important collections of manuscripts subsequently acquired are the Royal Manuscripts, comprising collections of British monarchs since Edward IV...". If we make the title a proper name, the British Library qualification is no longer needed as there are no similar competing titles and we are not now talking about royal manuscripts in general. Andrew Davidson (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it is pretty ambiguous for the average reader. I'm not sure how general a capital M is; the standard BL form is MS Royal + the number, though I see they use it here. I think keeping the disam is still preferable. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exhibition catalogue seems quite prepared to blame Bartholomew Traheron personally for the cull of Catholic liturgical manuscripts. It goes into quite some detail (p. 74), which is probably out of place here. Traheron is also given credit for the consolidation of 1549, but the evidence is internal to the numerical cataloguing series.[1] Again the details might be over the top here. But I think he deserves to be in, on the presumption that he was an activist librarian. Makes me wonder how many others there were who treated the position as more than sinecure. By the way, Anthony Aucher is in the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
