Jump to content

Talk:Mammotrectus super Bibliam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misspelling

[edit]

The list of ways in which the title was misspelled seems to lead off with the correct spelling.PurpleChez (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not well phrased. The reference actually says:
"Even the title of the book was uncertain. Marchesinus names it Mammotrectus or Mammetractus, which he explains as 'led by a pedagogue'; but a current form of the name was Mammothreptus, which was interpreted as 'brought up by one's grandmother'."
I have brought the article into line with this.John M Brear (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mammotrectus super Bibliam. 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:

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) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

The article goes out of its way to state several times that the book was criticised, but never makes clear what the core points of criticism of the various critics actually were. At present the article reads as if we should be impressed by the names mentioned and just take on faith that this book is no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.20.136 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]