body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

"Celtic Fringe" is derogatory term[edit]

In relation to items such as the Book of Kells, reference is made to the Celtic fringe. Many consider this term to be derogatory, as is mentioned in the article on Celtic nations. This term is often used to imply that the concerns of these peoples can be dismissed as being as politically peripheral as the regions they inhabit are geographically peripheral relative to the European landmass - a patently absurd and offensive equation.

Sorry if this seems nit-picking but what would be an appropriate temr with which to replace it? "Celtic nations"? The "insular Celts"?

User:pclive 13:06, 21 June 2006 (BST)

British Isles[edit]

I have changed the phrase "in what is now the British Isles and Ireland" in the Western section to say just "the British Isles". This is a geographic, not a political designation. The British Isles have become the British Isles on geological, not historical, timescales, so using the term "in what is now" is inappropriate in the context of this article. Distinguishing Ireland from the rest of the British Isles when talking about geography rather than politics is a misleading and inaccurate neologism that has arisen through a combination of casual misinformation and misguided partisan zeal. ≈ pclive ≈ you aren't being clear on why you changed it. please make your explanation more accessible, or revert the article.

Armenian Calligraphy[edit]

I'm still new to the Wikipedia editing scene, but if somebody could, I think adding a section about Armenian calligraphy would be a great edition.

Orphaned references in Calligraphy[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Calligraphy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:01, 4 June 2018(UTC)

And more. There is a citation to "de Hamel 2001a" with no target. It could be any of these. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post-2023 clean up[edit]

Hello there, I made a writing push few years back expanding Western and East Asian calligraphies section. Since then the article got enriched with a lot of diverse traditions, which is nice. But this article has also degraded : fragmatation, over illustration, lack of overall organisation. I moved away from this field and can only do few minor edits as I did today, but this beautiful article is in need of an overall rewrite and clean up. May I suggest the following axis of improvements with the example of well documented East Asian calligraphy :

Categories