Talk:John Skylitzes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

[edit] Split

We are reorganising the Illuminated MS, and are weeding out those articles on texts rather than specific MS. This one could be "saved" for the category by the split, which I was keen to do - obviously it was not necessary on general grounds. Johnbod 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(I wrote this at the same time as you were writing your comment above. I won't re-write it, but have added a comment at the end.)

What is the rationale for splitting off of the Madrid Skylitzes? If we have two articles, one for Skylitzes, one for the Madrid Skylitzes, where is information about the Σύνοψις Ἱστοριῶν itself supposed to go? After all, the Madrid Skylitzes is just a particular manuscript.

I think the best solution was the status quo ante, where the author, the work, and the manuscript were all treated together. After all, he is known primarily for that one work, and that manuscript is its most famous manifestation. What was wrong with that (with redirects, of course)?

Naturally, if any parts of the article ended up being very large, there would be an argument for splitting. Macrakis 16:44, 20 March 2007

I would prefer the solution that the Madrid Skylitzes page be a simple redirect (status quo ante) or a very short article. To much of the bibliography about the Synopsis and the Madrid MS overlaps. --Macrakis 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of articles about authors or texts, which also cover specific MS. The illuminated MS category should only have articles (in general) about the latter, otherwise things become chaotic. You are the one who has been cutting the overlaps - at the present stub stage I don't see a little duplication as a problem. Johnbod 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)