Talk:Chronica Majora

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

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 20 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that this change is not necessary. Nobody commented on the proposal to lowercase the M, so leaving that as is too. — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronica Majora → Chronica maiora – The spelling 'majora' is a holdover from antiquated editions; the original spelling (already adopted on German and Latin Wikipedia) is 'maiora'. AndrewNJ (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I and J were the same letter until at least the 17th century, so majora is just as accurate as maiora. Such a change would seem to me to be unnecessary pedanticism... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- More accurately, J didn't exist as a letter in Latin of the thirteenth century. (It sometimes appears when 'i' is doubled, i.e. a long i, but here the distinction is only graphic; but it would not be used in a word such as 'maiora' in any case.) I acknowledge that it's a touch pedantic, but the fact remains that anyone who tried to publish a modern critical edition of Matthew Paris's book and entitled it Chronica majora would be laughed out of the room. AndrewNJ (talk)

There was not a "letter I" and a "letter J" distinct from each other. "J" was a scribal swash variant -- see article Swash (typography) for the moveable type side (not sure what we have on swashes in scribal handwriting). Sometimes "I" and "J" were not recognized as separate in alphabetical listings until well into the 19th century (though admittedly archaic by then).[1] Modern Latin scholars can decide that under their currently-chosen conventions they don't want "j" there, but I don't really see why that should displace the English common name... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Parker Library uses maiora, the British Library manages to use both. Nigel Morgan, A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, Volume 4: Early Gothic Manuscripts, Part 1 1190–1250, Harvey Miller Ltd, London, 1982, ISBN 0199210268 uses maiora. Neither can be called wrong. I'm concerned at a flood of perhaps over-assertive and certainly undiscussed edits from AndrewNJ, and his NEVER USING EDIT SUMMARIES. Please stop that! Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. On edit summaries, I always use them when making substantial changes, but I was under the impression that they were unnecessary for minor edits: I happened across a spate of pages yesterday that were not properly linked to another article, but this is immaterial to the pages' content. AndrewNJ (talk)

They should always be used, especially when doing only 1 edit to an article, or the last of a series. Otherwise people who use their watchlists, or are looking at the history, waste their time checking, when they might otherwise not. Repeated edit summaries should pop up in the suggest box after a couple of letters are typed. It's always best to assume there#s no such thing on WP as a "minor edit", except adding an apostrophe. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I think. "Majora" still seems to be more prominent (and as pointed out above, neither are really incorrect). Google Books returns 23k hits for Chronica Majora since 1950, compared to 6.6k for "Chronica Maiora". Ngram shows the same trend since 1950,[2] as does JSTOR ([3] vs. [4]). Unless there's a clear preference for "Maiora" in the top works on the subject, "Majora" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further Edits[edit]

I am currently studying for an MA in Historical Research. I have heavily researched the Chronica Majora and was fortunate enough to be taught by a Professor who is responsible for the most recent/modern translation of the text. I am looking into editing this page and perhaps adding some new sections. I would like to let as many people as possible know before I go ahead. Does anyone have any requests on what they would like to see change or what they would prefer to leave as is?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaraLevi (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]