Talk:De Mulieribus Claris

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikisource?

This may belong on Wikisource. Alba 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that the text is on Wikisource, or that it should be there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it on Wikisource. I only know of Virginia Brown's translation that was done in 2001. There is another English translation done in the mid twentieth century. Don't know of any earlier translations.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eve

Eve, our first mother

This looked a bit like POV to me, so I changed it. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

Shouldn't this rather be called Of Famous Women rather than On Famous Women? --BiT 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format?

On my browser, the images are straggling all over the page. Does it look this way to others? Are there any objections to changing it? Kafka Liz (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor that designed it this way. Apparently on some computers it comes out as you speak of. I guess it depends on resolution settings, etc (too technicial for me - setting are 1152 X 864 pixels and 1280 x 1024). I have several computers and it comes out correctly on all of mine. Also have checked it on about half a dozen other computers at various locations throughout the United States (public libraries) and it also comes out alright. My guess is that on most computers for others it displays as I designed it - that is that all the pictures line up vertically correctly from the top to the bottom, with no "staggering all over the place". I have not come across other's objection to this layout. What suggestions do you have in mind? --Doug ^talk 12:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am presently at a public library and checked several of their computers - they all display correctly, with no "staggering all over the place" of the images displayed vertically. Thinking it is something special with your particular PC computer. Suggest you check this out at your local library computers to see how it looks. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article name in English

Why is the name of this article "Famous Women" and not De mulieribus claris as is the case for other works, Latin and Italian, by Giovanni Boccaccio? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! Moved to De mulieribus claris and also the Talk Page. Corrected Famous Women, On Famous Women, and Of Famous Women to redirect to De mulieribus claris.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Holland?

Why is "Kate Holland" included as biography 88.1? It looks like a prank insertion, with the description "a classy and unvague lady." Joe Fusion (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'First Work Dedicated to Women's Biographies'? No.

Factually incorrect claim. Why?

The first work exclusively dedicated to women that we know of? Suetonius' "Lives of Famous Whores". Unfortunately the work itself has been entirely lost, but its testimony does exist. And I'm sure there were almost certainly female-only biographies dating from antiquity. Yevardian (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Catalogue of Women, which may even have directly inspired Boccaccio. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. See the investigation subpage and WP:DCGAR for more information. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]