Talk:Wimple

Scan copyright

Regarding the issue of a scan of a print from the Maciejowski Bible that was linked to by this article:

While the original work (the Maciejowski Bible, Pierpont Morgan Library Manuscript m.638) is out of copyright, the image in question is a scan from a print in "Old Testament Miniatures", the earliest printing of which was in 1927. The image on Wikipedia is therefore not out of copyright, and cannot be presented as Public Domain. It may be fair use, but that is a different argument.

Trivial reproductions of publid domain art can't be copyrighted. From Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts: "Note: Accurate photographs of visual artworks lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (which it has in the US if it was published before 1923). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored." There are also some court cases regarding this, and at least in the US and in Germany these pictures are PD. Kusma (討論) 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Podwika?

Is this the same thing as pl:Podwika? If so, in addition to interwiki, we can get some good pictures.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle English

I'm deleting this claim:

"In Middle English, the word was wymple, and anyone wearing one would be Ywympled, rather than wimpled."

because it's unsourced and is based on a misunderstanding of the history of orthography. There was no uniformity in spelling in the Middle English period; a quick look at the OED shows that the Middle English spellings of the word included winpel, wimpel, wempel, wimpil, wympul, wompyll, and wympill. "Wymple" and "wimple" both apparently appear from the 14th century onwards.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew Transliteration

The bit of Hebrew here is strangely done. It says that "וְהַמִּטְפָּחוֹת" is the same as "miṭpaḥoth". The problem is that the Hebrew actually says "v'hamiṭpaḥoth", which means "and the miṭpaḥoth". It might be better to just make the Hebrew read "מִּטְפָּחוֹת", though this might not be appropriate if this is a quote from somewhere.

Aasmith (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Guimpe and Wimple

The terms "wimple" and "guimpe" both refer to garments covering women's head and neck, particularly in religious contexts. They share the same etymological root (Proto-Germanic "*wimpilaz") and are thus doublets. In English, the terms are often used interchangeably, while in many European languages, a single term suffices for both garments. According to Google Ngrams, "wimple" has (almost) always been the most favoured term in English : [1]. This overlap makes a good case for merging the articles to give a clearer and more complete picture of their history and cultural importance. The distinction between the two articles arises from the evolution of "guimpe" in French, where it originally referred to a wimple in the Middle Ages but later came to mean a high-necked blouse by the 19th century. Occasionally, English uses "guimpe" to describe this 19th-century blouse or a "French wimple," adding some confusion. The differences in meaning can be effectively addressed within a single article, rather than splitting related concepts into two.Nucleos (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to do the rewrite? Presumably "wimple" would be the destination? Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, wimple would be the appropriate term. I’d be happy to contribute to this, of course, but I’d like to receive some feedback first. Specifically, I feel confident about my assertions above, but I’d like to consult more references before proceeding with the changes. Nucleos (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I was able to consult the book 20,000 Years of Fashion (listed in the bibliography) today, and it simply refers to the term "Wimple" with: "See Guimp." Nucleos (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)