This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire 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.HerefordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HerefordshireTemplate:WikiProject HerefordshireHerefordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
How come? What's the source of this affirmation? Mappa mundi means, literally, world map. Any map that represents the world is a mappa mundi. I challenge this concept of "only medieval" maps of the world are mappae mundi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.182.252 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought not - it describes an atlas and a heart shaped world map which comes from a later period. For some reason the Spanish wikipedia seems to call all world maps "mapamundi" --Henrygb 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason why only medieval maps are called mappa mundi? I fully agree with the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.182.252 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading Bede and his account of the zones places them clearly in the sky, not on the Earth. I think that in the Early Middle Ages Zonal Maps are (sometimes|often|usually) related to the zones in the celestial sphere, not to zones on the Earth. Are there any examples of an ancient or early medieval map (say before 1100) that shows the zones unambiguously on the surface of the Earth? If not, the discussion and accompanying illustration are seriously misleading. --SteveMcCluskey 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard my last. I checked Macrobius and he talks explicitly about the relation between the celestial parallels and their terrestrial equivalents. --SteveMcCluskey 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, according to the article, the plural of "mappa mundi" is "mappae mundi", should all the instances of "mappaemundi" in the article be replaced with "mappae mundi"? Thanks, David Kernow 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same question went through my mind as I read this article. I'm pretty sure that it should be mappae mundi -- two words and italicized. --WikiPedant 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've peformed a simple find+replace on "mappaemundi" in the article, replacing it with "mappae mundi"; hope nothing has been broken in the process. Thanks for your input, David 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the T and O article is not, at this point, very long, it seemed to make more sense to have it as a section of this article rather than its own separate entity. Input would be much appreciated, as I've never suggested a merge before. Cheers.
--Evan, guest editor; 19 Jul 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.225.53 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The T and O article has developed quite well so perhaps should remain separate.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Mappa mundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Should we really have a section on Beatus’s map?[edit]
I find it quite odd that we have an entire section on a specific guy’s map. Sure its an important map, but I dont think it counts as an entire style. And before you say there are multiple examples of Beatus maps, well thats only because people in medieval times liked to make reproductions of older works. Its like saying Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone is a style of book beacause its reprinted, no, its just a plain old book, not a style. And finally Beatus maps look almost exactly the same as T and O maps, there’s almost no difference. So like Harry Potter is a fantasy novel, the Beatus map is just a T and O map, and I think it doesn’t deserve a whole section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFlemeingtonz (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most references use mappamundi as a single word. Seems to be the most common usgage by far. Not sure how/why this article ended up using mappa mundi. Unless there are concerns, I propose to rename. Glendoremus (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So no, one word is not the most common usage, 3 out of the first 5 links use two words against 1 use of single word IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
