This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't it make sense to merge Vellum and Vellum parchment? Is there any reason for a disambiguation page, given that the two meanings listed are closely related? Wmahan 03:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. Vellum is a bit more complicated. Parchment is not vellum ... at times pieces of parchment would be sewn onto vellum for illustrative purposes, or maybe to cover a hole in the vellum produced by the stretching process (at times the scribe would even write around the wholes). This needs more work and as such should not be listed.
[User:William_Henry_Turner]I still have a problem with the first paragraph: In line 1, "Vellum is prepared animal skin or writing surface, typically calfskin.", maybe "or writing surface" is intended to be "as a writing surface". If so, it should follow "typically calfskin". Then the line that begins "If vellum is distinguished" makes no sense to me. Maybe you mean to say "If vellum must be distinguished as a particular type of animal skin...." If so, edit the rest of the sentence, too.
the page for parchment says that vellum is derived from the latin for "calf," but here it gives the derivation from the latin for "pelt."
The first paragraph states that vellum was originally made from pig skin. The second paragraph states that it was originally made from calf skin. Obviously these are at odds. I have had difficulty locating an online source for either. Despite etymological roots that may tie to calf, obviously it could have been originally made from swine before calves became more common for the purpose, the name perhaps having come later.
The article states without reference that vellum made from unborn calf skin is "still the preferred type for Torah scrolls today." I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any knowledge of Kosher law, but it struck me as a possible misconception. I've found no sources to back up the claim; rather, most sources seem only to indicate which part of the calf's skin is preferable. Can anyone confirm or deny? -- Dmagus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw a rabbi explaining this on TV recently. Why a possible misconception? Johnbod 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "Large paper drawings require an additional step (tracing paper amenable to letting light pass through it, and hence is more error prone)" appears to be an unfinished thought. It is unclear what additional step the author was referring to, and what the connection between light passing through and errors is.
Lriley47 ( talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is rather unfortunate and unsurprising that only the obscure American drawing sizes are seen as worth mentioning. Most of the world uses ISO-sizes (A0, A1, A2 etc). 213.243.170.211 ( talk) 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Petri
The paper sizes are not completely identified. These are the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Sizes, and are not the only sizes used in the United States. Architectural paper sizes, which are slightly larger, are also used. Lriley47 ( talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An entry on vellum seems like a completely non-obvious and inappropriate place for a discussion of paper sizes or VLSI technologies. This discussion should be replaced with appropriate references to other entries (in the case of paper sizes, incorporating the ISO size comment above), or omitted entirely (in the case of VLSI). Rschnitz ( talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This section of the article leads off with the sentence: "There is some confusion about the relationship between the words vellum and parchment." It then goes on to describe vellum in detail, but completely neglects to clarify the confusion between vellum and parchment. If no clarification is to be offered, shouldn't this sentence be removed? Or, more properly, shouldn't some clarification be given? Thanks! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggested, what the paper (fay from bois or chiffon) vellum, from the vellum el peau of baby-cow deadborn, whos is a sort of parchment.
-- Jean-François Clet ( talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this diff: See here pages 96 and 99, where human skin is said to resemble pigskin, hardly to be mistaken for vellum. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really remember why I was supposed to take it here, but am supposed to. Can someone help me out? VampireDoctor ( talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Bill, I agree with the doctor, you just removed far too much there. That section on engineering use of vellum paper was informative and useful, and since this article covers both skin vellum and vellum paper, this is where it belongs too.--
Svartalf (
talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a picture which says this is a vellum document of the seventeenth century. Problem is, the EXACT SAME ILLUSTRATION is also used in the article on parchment, saying, this is a parchment document of the seventeenth century. Is it one or t'other? Can anyone tell? 140.161.86.159 ( talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Both 'herse' and 'hearse' are used in the article. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.213.237 ( talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Having looked at a few of your recent edits I have to say that a high proportion of them seem unhelpful to the project to me. You mainly remove material, which is a classic warning sign. Your judgement as to what is "POV" seems idiosyncratic and often poor. You feel justified in removing uncited material, on a somewhat random basis. This is generally not very helpful - unfortunately there is not much difference between the overall accuracy of cited and uncited material on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the proportion of uncited material is high. Removing it very often just leaves gaps that weaken the article. This isn't 2006, and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we don't now. Johnbod ( talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
(Moved by him from his talk page). The material removed was: " Many libraries and museums increasingly use only the safe if confusing opinion term "membrane"; citation needed depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal involved (let alone the age of the animal) without using a laboratory, and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment." If anyone has a reference please add here. Johnbod ( talk) 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that we've pretty much got the parchment/vellum distinction agreed (viz. that, in modern usage, there isn't an absolute distinction, but that "parchment" refers to all types of animal membrane used as a writing material; whereas "vellum" refers to a subset of finer quality), can I raise the issue of the four images currently illustrating the article – copied here for convenience. Because it seems to me that all four illustrate parchment, and not vellum.
Deeds, legal instruments, and other archival documents were invariably written on everyday parchment, not fine vellum. Magna Carta is a nice iconic lede image; but, in the vast amount of literature on the subject, most authorities refer to "parchment", as does our Wikipedia article. The portolan chart is a higher-quality item, but it's also on a large, heavy-duty sheet, and I'd certainly be inclined to call it parchment, not vellum. (The image originates from a Dutch source, where the material was described as "perkament": this was then translated into English as "vellum" – I would suggest incorrectly. In fact, in this particular case, as the sheet comprises a substantial part of the hide, it might be possible for an expert to determine the animal species without too much difficulty; but we would of course need a reliable source.) The natural science book is more borderline, but it's still a student's working textbook, and it looks more like "parchment" than "vellum" to me.
Can't we find a few images of high-quality presentation manuscripts that are more unequivocally written on vellum? The obvious thing would probably be an illuminated manuscript, but most of the images available on Commons ( c:Category:Illuminated manuscripts) understandably focus on the individual illuminations, rather than the support. Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
GrindtXX ( talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wouldn't it make sense to merge Vellum and Vellum parchment? Is there any reason for a disambiguation page, given that the two meanings listed are closely related? Wmahan 03:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. Vellum is a bit more complicated. Parchment is not vellum ... at times pieces of parchment would be sewn onto vellum for illustrative purposes, or maybe to cover a hole in the vellum produced by the stretching process (at times the scribe would even write around the wholes). This needs more work and as such should not be listed.
[User:William_Henry_Turner]I still have a problem with the first paragraph: In line 1, "Vellum is prepared animal skin or writing surface, typically calfskin.", maybe "or writing surface" is intended to be "as a writing surface". If so, it should follow "typically calfskin". Then the line that begins "If vellum is distinguished" makes no sense to me. Maybe you mean to say "If vellum must be distinguished as a particular type of animal skin...." If so, edit the rest of the sentence, too.
the page for parchment says that vellum is derived from the latin for "calf," but here it gives the derivation from the latin for "pelt."
The first paragraph states that vellum was originally made from pig skin. The second paragraph states that it was originally made from calf skin. Obviously these are at odds. I have had difficulty locating an online source for either. Despite etymological roots that may tie to calf, obviously it could have been originally made from swine before calves became more common for the purpose, the name perhaps having come later.
The article states without reference that vellum made from unborn calf skin is "still the preferred type for Torah scrolls today." I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any knowledge of Kosher law, but it struck me as a possible misconception. I've found no sources to back up the claim; rather, most sources seem only to indicate which part of the calf's skin is preferable. Can anyone confirm or deny? -- Dmagus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw a rabbi explaining this on TV recently. Why a possible misconception? Johnbod 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The sentence "Large paper drawings require an additional step (tracing paper amenable to letting light pass through it, and hence is more error prone)" appears to be an unfinished thought. It is unclear what additional step the author was referring to, and what the connection between light passing through and errors is.
Lriley47 ( talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It is rather unfortunate and unsurprising that only the obscure American drawing sizes are seen as worth mentioning. Most of the world uses ISO-sizes (A0, A1, A2 etc). 213.243.170.211 ( talk) 13:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Petri
The paper sizes are not completely identified. These are the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Sizes, and are not the only sizes used in the United States. Architectural paper sizes, which are slightly larger, are also used. Lriley47 ( talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An entry on vellum seems like a completely non-obvious and inappropriate place for a discussion of paper sizes or VLSI technologies. This discussion should be replaced with appropriate references to other entries (in the case of paper sizes, incorporating the ISO size comment above), or omitted entirely (in the case of VLSI). Rschnitz ( talk) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This section of the article leads off with the sentence: "There is some confusion about the relationship between the words vellum and parchment." It then goes on to describe vellum in detail, but completely neglects to clarify the confusion between vellum and parchment. If no clarification is to be offered, shouldn't this sentence be removed? Or, more properly, shouldn't some clarification be given? Thanks! WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggested, what the paper (fay from bois or chiffon) vellum, from the vellum el peau of baby-cow deadborn, whos is a sort of parchment.
-- Jean-François Clet ( talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this diff: See here pages 96 and 99, where human skin is said to resemble pigskin, hardly to be mistaken for vellum. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really remember why I was supposed to take it here, but am supposed to. Can someone help me out? VampireDoctor ( talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Bill, I agree with the doctor, you just removed far too much there. That section on engineering use of vellum paper was informative and useful, and since this article covers both skin vellum and vellum paper, this is where it belongs too.--
Svartalf (
talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a picture which says this is a vellum document of the seventeenth century. Problem is, the EXACT SAME ILLUSTRATION is also used in the article on parchment, saying, this is a parchment document of the seventeenth century. Is it one or t'other? Can anyone tell? 140.161.86.159 ( talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Both 'herse' and 'hearse' are used in the article. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.62.213.237 ( talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Having looked at a few of your recent edits I have to say that a high proportion of them seem unhelpful to the project to me. You mainly remove material, which is a classic warning sign. Your judgement as to what is "POV" seems idiosyncratic and often poor. You feel justified in removing uncited material, on a somewhat random basis. This is generally not very helpful - unfortunately there is not much difference between the overall accuracy of cited and uncited material on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the proportion of uncited material is high. Removing it very often just leaves gaps that weaken the article. This isn't 2006, and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we don't now. Johnbod ( talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
(Moved by him from his talk page). The material removed was: " Many libraries and museums increasingly use only the safe if confusing opinion term "membrane"; citation needed depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal involved (let alone the age of the animal) without using a laboratory, and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment." If anyone has a reference please add here. Johnbod ( talk) 01:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that we've pretty much got the parchment/vellum distinction agreed (viz. that, in modern usage, there isn't an absolute distinction, but that "parchment" refers to all types of animal membrane used as a writing material; whereas "vellum" refers to a subset of finer quality), can I raise the issue of the four images currently illustrating the article – copied here for convenience. Because it seems to me that all four illustrate parchment, and not vellum.
Deeds, legal instruments, and other archival documents were invariably written on everyday parchment, not fine vellum. Magna Carta is a nice iconic lede image; but, in the vast amount of literature on the subject, most authorities refer to "parchment", as does our Wikipedia article. The portolan chart is a higher-quality item, but it's also on a large, heavy-duty sheet, and I'd certainly be inclined to call it parchment, not vellum. (The image originates from a Dutch source, where the material was described as "perkament": this was then translated into English as "vellum" – I would suggest incorrectly. In fact, in this particular case, as the sheet comprises a substantial part of the hide, it might be possible for an expert to determine the animal species without too much difficulty; but we would of course need a reliable source.) The natural science book is more borderline, but it's still a student's working textbook, and it looks more like "parchment" than "vellum" to me.
Can't we find a few images of high-quality presentation manuscripts that are more unequivocally written on vellum? The obvious thing would probably be an illuminated manuscript, but most of the images available on Commons ( c:Category:Illuminated manuscripts) understandably focus on the individual illuminations, rather than the support. Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
GrindtXX ( talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)