Talk:Visio Tnugdali

Sudden move

The matter should have been raised here before the move, especially as the article has been edited recently. The latin title is certainly the correct name for the article about the Latin work. I propose to ask for the move to be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right - but these articles were pretty hard to locate and this is one reason. Your point begs the question since it is the English version that is most widely known. Google gives 702 hits for "tnugdalus" and 2,610 for "tundale". Redheylin (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I get:"Visio Tnugdali" = " 2,070, "Vision of Tundal" = 157, "Vision of Tundale"= 622, "Vision of Tondal" =125. Tundale is also a modern surname. It is certainly not any of the English versions that are best known, except among Eng lit students. Most other scholarship uses the Latin, or talks about other translations. They were a redirect anyway - "Tundale" has been a redirect since 2006, so there should have been no problem. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's probably right, since the English recension is usually called simply "Tundale" or Tundal. I checked and there are very few rogues among the results. I'd also point out - I have just been working on - Myth of Er and Dream of Scipio, both with Engish titles - having got the folks to the page, one can try a little Latin or Greek. Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick also English. It's not the end of the world either way, but I really think this is the most accessible. Consult others if you want. Sorry about the abrupt move, but the page did not look as though anyone had an eye on it - I just fixed two links. I have participated in wideranging academic discussions in which Tundale was the preferred reference.Redheylin (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your final title is certainly wrong "The Vision of Tundale" gets just 445 ghits, all of which seem to refer to the English title. "Tnugdali" gets 2270 by the way. In the way of these things the "rogue" hits will all at the end - 100% of page 25 appear to be "rogues" on the "Tundale" search. You should at the very least have looked at the history of the article, and asked here. Really all you needed to do was add redirects. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Johnbod and have undone the move. If the article is hard to find, redirects will do, I think.  Sandstein  06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New Sections and Title Problem

Since there was previously some discussion supporting the appropriateness of using the Latin name "Visio Tnugdale" since this an article was not specifically about the English text, I have added some additional information on the English text, creating a specific section, and also have likewise sectioned off the French version.

I would like to bring up for reconsideration the title of this entry. This is the English Wikipedia and since there is a perfectly suitable English name for this work, I think calling it by its Latin name is problematic. For example the enrty in Wikipedia on Dante's magnum opus is "The Divine Comedy," not "La Commedia," it's original name. Since 1843, when Turnbull published his edition of the Middle English text, "The Vision of Tundale" has been the name that English audiences have used to refer to this text. Both modern editors, myself and Rodney Mearns, use "The Vision of Tundale; and all 5 manuscripts name the visionary as "Tundale."

As to what one uses when one searches for this, even I now use "Vision Tnudgali" when I search for the English article, since I know this is where it is. I suggest that "The Vision of Tundale" is the main page for this English-language article and "Visio Tnugdali" redirects to it.

Thanks. I look forward to hearing more on this. Egardiner0 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0

Triviaspam

@Johnbod:: What in your view is the encyclopedic value of unsourced cruft such as Visio_Tnugdali#The_Vision_of_Tundale_in_modern_fiction, which you reverted back in with even more crap attached? This article is about the medieval text, not plot summaries of 2020s crime fiction.

Per MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." Here, we don't even have a primary source properly cited, let alone a secondary one. Sandstein 09:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)