Talk:Codex Atlanticus/Archive 1

Number of folia

The article cites 1119 manuscript papers, the image 1200. What is correct? DTBone (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The number 1200 or more is supported by some sources,[1][2] but the more specific figure of 1,119 sheets is supported by equal or better sources, and notably this seems to be confirmed as the final item in the catalog. Wareh (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

article is sub-standard

There is a great deal to be said of the Atlanticus. Most of the article is devoted to a single incident, involving a single page, and the relevance of that business is not evident anyway.

As well as being deficient, it is also out of date. New Scientist recently published an article noting that the Atlanticus was being opened again, and pages from it are being displayed. It contains new information about Leonardo, his pastimes and preoccupations. I will see if I can update this. Myles325a (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be wonderful if you could begin the expansion of the article to address Leonardo's work, which is presumably where the bulk of the subject's importance lies! I'm not sure what kind of catalogues may accompany the rolling exhibits in Milan ([3][4]), but I'm sure there's something. If nothing else, we have a whole Commons category to peruse! Wareh (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI section

“ It was always assumed to have contained 1750 drawings (all by the great master), but this is now known to be incorrect. There were actually 1751 drawings, and this fact must have been known to Professor Barbieri and Father Giosafat Kurelo, the men who were responsible for the restoration work that took place in Grottaferrata between 1962 and 1972, and certainly to Professor Augusto Marinoni, supervisor for the Italian state.

During the restoration, all the drawings were removed from the sheets and on page 1033, formerly 370 (old numeration 51), a drawing measuring 21 x 16 cm was removed, which is now located on sheet 1035 recto: beneath the removed sheet, traces of glue could be seen, proof that a smaller drawing had been glued there; a drawing of which no mention had been made until today. This sheet, of which all trace had been lost, has now been found.

All information and in-depth examinations about the rediscovered drawing on http://www.leonardoritrovato.com/Il_Disegno_ritrovato/Home.html

”

This section, promotional of leonardoritrovato.com, was added as the sole contribution of a user Francesco Gerbino (talk), which is the name of that same website's editor and proprietor[5], Francesco Maria Gerbino (judging from Google, not a scholar or anyone whose views have been endorsed or even considered by a WP:RS).

Accordingly, I have removed the section to this talk page. By Wikipedia policy, it should only be added to the article in a form that meets with the approval of a consensus of unaffiliated editors. Until I see cogent evidence to the contrary, my position is that there is no reason or properly attributable basis on which to include this topic at all. Wareh (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci and Expanding Earth Theory

In the Codex Atlanticus, Leonardo Da Vinci mentions why he believes in Expanding Earth Theory. Users (the usual suspects) are attempting to censor this information for obvious reasons.76.216.196.209 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the very definition of WP:OR (original research), which is forbidden at Wikipedia. Find a WP:RS (reliable secondary source) that describes the most important content of the Codex Atlanticus. That's what our section should offer. If the RS's agree that the subject of our article Expanding Earth is so notable a part of the Codex Atlanticus's contents that it merits mention even in a one-sentence summary, then you will not find any "censorship" of the information cited to high-quality sources. Then our mysterious "obvious reasons" for opposing your edits will mysteriously vanish. Wareh (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci's published works are not original research nor are his opinions forbidden at Wikipedia76.216.196.209 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The points are (1) Leonardo is a primary not secondary source, see WP:PRIMARY, (2) since this part of the article should summarize the most notable subjects in the codex, we should follow secondary sources in deciding what those are & are not free to pick and choose our points of emphasis apart from this, (3) the wikilink to Expanding Earth is somewhat questionable, since it is not at all clear that what Leonardo is talking about is the same theory presented at that article: the connection between the two is WP:OR and requires verification and attribution from a secondary source.

It actually seems clear to me that there are secondary sources discussing this passage of Leonardo. If you simply learn Wikipedia policies (all linked above), you may be able to write a perfectly acceptable section on "expanding earth" that goes like "A passage in which Leonardo says [X] has been claimed by [Y] sources to have [Z] significance." Be careful, if doing this, not to present it as headline news about the codex's contents, but simply as a report on one subject that has received scholarly attention. Until you do this, I'm afraid I can't take your complaints about being reverted seriously.

I notice you are not defending "Prisca Scientia" as something the secondary sources say about the Codex Atlanticus. Looking briefly into the subject, I found that (unlike the earth-accretion passage) it seems to be discussed in your "oilismastery" blog, not so much in scholarly books, at least under that name. Wareh (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Codex Atlanticus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081026215502/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_sc/eu_italy_da_vinci_codex_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_sc/eu_italy_da_vinci_codex_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a proper full pdf of the codex available? All I see is just a bunch of talking/opinions and random screenshots as usual.. :/ Gendalv (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codex Atlanticus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127204224/http://www.leonardodigitale.com/index.php?lang=ENG to http://www.leonardodigitale.com/index.php?lang=ENG

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) 05:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of folia

The article cites 1119 manuscript papers, the image 1200. What is correct? DTBone (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The number 1200 or more is supported by some sources,[6][7] but the more specific figure of 1,119 sheets is supported by equal or better sources, and notably this seems to be confirmed as the final item in the catalog. Wareh (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

article is sub-standard

There is a great deal to be said of the Atlanticus. Most of the article is devoted to a single incident, involving a single page, and the relevance of that business is not evident anyway.

As well as being deficient, it is also out of date. New Scientist recently published an article noting that the Atlanticus was being opened again, and pages from it are being displayed. It contains new information about Leonardo, his pastimes and preoccupations. I will see if I can update this. Myles325a (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be wonderful if you could begin the expansion of the article to address Leonardo's work, which is presumably where the bulk of the subject's importance lies! I'm not sure what kind of catalogues may accompany the rolling exhibits in Milan ([8][9]), but I'm sure there's something. If nothing else, we have a whole Commons category to peruse! Wareh (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI section

“ It was always assumed to have contained 1750 drawings (all by the great master), but this is now known to be incorrect. There were actually 1751 drawings, and this fact must have been known to Professor Barbieri and Father Giosafat Kurelo, the men who were responsible for the restoration work that took place in Grottaferrata between 1962 and 1972, and certainly to Professor Augusto Marinoni, supervisor for the Italian state.

During the restoration, all the drawings were removed from the sheets and on page 1033, formerly 370 (old numeration 51), a drawing measuring 21 x 16 cm was removed, which is now located on sheet 1035 recto: beneath the removed sheet, traces of glue could be seen, proof that a smaller drawing had been glued there; a drawing of which no mention had been made until today. This sheet, of which all trace had been lost, has now been found.

All information and in-depth examinations about the rediscovered drawing on http://www.leonardoritrovato.com/Il_Disegno_ritrovato/Home.html

”

This section, promotional of leonardoritrovato.com, was added as the sole contribution of a user Francesco Gerbino (talk), which is the name of that same website's editor and proprietor[10], Francesco Maria Gerbino (judging from Google, not a scholar or anyone whose views have been endorsed or even considered by a WP:RS).

Accordingly, I have removed the section to this talk page. By Wikipedia policy, it should only be added to the article in a form that meets with the approval of a consensus of unaffiliated editors. Until I see cogent evidence to the contrary, my position is that there is no reason or properly attributable basis on which to include this topic at all. Wareh (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci and Expanding Earth Theory

In the Codex Atlanticus, Leonardo Da Vinci mentions why he believes in Expanding Earth Theory. Users (the usual suspects) are attempting to censor this information for obvious reasons.76.216.196.209 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the very definition of WP:OR (original research), which is forbidden at Wikipedia. Find a WP:RS (reliable secondary source) that describes the most important content of the Codex Atlanticus. That's what our section should offer. If the RS's agree that the subject of our article Expanding Earth is so notable a part of the Codex Atlanticus's contents that it merits mention even in a one-sentence summary, then you will not find any "censorship" of the information cited to high-quality sources. Then our mysterious "obvious reasons" for opposing your edits will mysteriously vanish. Wareh (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci's published works are not original research nor are his opinions forbidden at Wikipedia76.216.196.209 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The points are (1) Leonardo is a primary not secondary source, see WP:PRIMARY, (2) since this part of the article should summarize the most notable subjects in the codex, we should follow secondary sources in deciding what those are & are not free to pick and choose our points of emphasis apart from this, (3) the wikilink to Expanding Earth is somewhat questionable, since it is not at all clear that what Leonardo is talking about is the same theory presented at that article: the connection between the two is WP:OR and requires verification and attribution from a secondary source.

It actually seems clear to me that there are secondary sources discussing this passage of Leonardo. If you simply learn Wikipedia policies (all linked above), you may be able to write a perfectly acceptable section on "expanding earth" that goes like "A passage in which Leonardo says [X] has been claimed by [Y] sources to have [Z] significance." Be careful, if doing this, not to present it as headline news about the codex's contents, but simply as a report on one subject that has received scholarly attention. Until you do this, I'm afraid I can't take your complaints about being reverted seriously.

I notice you are not defending "Prisca Scientia" as something the secondary sources say about the Codex Atlanticus. Looking briefly into the subject, I found that (unlike the earth-accretion passage) it seems to be discussed in your "oilismastery" blog, not so much in scholarly books, at least under that name. Wareh (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Codex Atlanticus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081026215502/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_sc/eu_italy_da_vinci_codex_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_sc/eu_italy_da_vinci_codex_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a proper full pdf of the codex available? All I see is just a bunch of talking/opinions and random screenshots as usual.. :/ Gendalv (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codex Atlanticus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127204224/http://www.leonardodigitale.com/index.php?lang=ENG to http://www.leonardodigitale.com/index.php?lang=ENG

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) 05:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)