This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge --KenBailey (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. There is currently a confusing overlap and replication of content between the two articles, but I suggest this be separated so that Pseudo-Apuleius becomes primarily biographical and relate to the author whilst Herbarium Apuleii Platonici should relate principally to the work and its long history. --KenBailey (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
„Pseudo-Apuleius“ is the title, that now is most commonly used for the book. It was displaced by other books like “Circa instans” and “Pseudo-Macer” after the 12th century. The 1481 printing of “Pseudo-Apuleius” was at a time, when the book was nearly forgotten. It was the first illustrated printed herbal, that is true, but the text was well out of time in 1481. The Mainz printings of 1484 (Herbarius moguntinus) and 1485 (Gart der Gesundheit) were the second and the third illustrated printed herbals, but their contents differ far from the 1481 printing of “Pseudo-Apuleius”. The “Gart” contains a wild mixture of many texts, that were falsely declared by the author. He even cited Hildegard von Bingen without declaring that the citations were of hers. The text of the Herbarius of 1484 is not yet examined. But what is sure is, that both have nothing in common with the “Pseudo-Apuleius”. (Michael Eyl) --2003:5D:8E14:4130:2975:79BF:F3C6:6EBE (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your opinion, would merging the two articles help or hinder the average wikipedia reader's understanding of the subject? --KenBailey (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a reader, who is not familiar with the subject, the biggest problem may be that the same book has many names which are not clearly designated. --2003:5D:8E14:4130:2975:79BF:F3C6:6EBE (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not familiar with the subject, I agree! I now understand that my suggestion to separate the "book" or "books" from the author would be of no value as little, if anything, is known of the author other than being the creator of the earliest work. I see from your response at User_talk:Srnec#Pseudo-Apuleius and his Herbarius that you evidently agreed with the merge proposal but were unsure how to conmplete it. I now agree that a merge is preferable and will try to help complete it. --KenBailey (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
„Herbarium Apuleii Platonici“.
The pictures. 1. Picture of 2 women: from Codex Vindibonensis 93 (13th century), leaf 93r, Herba Puleium (Mentha pulegium) showing, that the plant is able to cure stomach ache. These pictures are only in that one manuscript of the 13.th century. They are not typical for the illustration of Pseudo-Apuleius. 2. Picture of Plantago out of the 1481-printig.
In the article „Pseudo-Apuleius“ I made a choice of pictures: The same plants in two typical editions: 6th century and 13th century. I did not describe the pictures because this is a work that should be done by a person, who is familiar with art-history. The 2 pictures of the article "Herbarium Apulei Platonici" should not be merged into "Pseudo-Apuleius".
Origin. „Most scolars agree, that probably …“ I prefer to say nothing. Manuscript and Printing. Better in „Pseudo-Apuleius“. References. Reference 3 is merged already into „Pseudo-Apuleius“. External links. Better in „Pseudo-Apuleius“.
OK. I'll close this merge discussion here and redirect this article to Pseudo-Apuleius. We can continue any discussion of detail on Talk:Pseudo-Apuleius. Thanks. --KenBailey (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
