Template talk:RQ:Malory Le Morte Darthur

RFC discussion: September 2019
A number of these are not formatted correctly, perhaps because of the operation of the redirects. The consequence is unsightly, space wasting citations. As I've seen it, the problem can be corrected by using book=, chapter= and passage=. I don't know what the total number of offending instances is. Perhaps CirrusSearch with "insource:/[insert regex here]/" can lead to a more selective list than Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RQ:Malory_Le_Morte_Darthur. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally all uses of the template have to be checked.
 * The quote is not English but Middle English and has and not  in it.
 * It's not "page 415" but page 414f.
 * : Wrong language and spelling as above and missing chapter and book (missing inside the template, book is given outside the template).
 * : Wrong language and spelling as above and missing page.
 * The redirects Template:RQ:Mlry MrtArthr1, Template:RQ:Mlry MArthrP1, Template:RQ:Mlry MrtArthr1 and Template:RQ:Mlry MArthrP2, Template:RQ:Mlry MrtArthr2 should be replaced by the real template.
 * --Tybete (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the entries will need to be cleaned up manually as and when editors come across them; can't see any way of doing this by bot.
 * In general we place quotations with variant spellings of words under both the lemma and the entry of the variant. Thus, it's not actually wrong to have the Malory quotation under warrant just because it is spelt waraunt. However, I agree that we generally (arbitrarily) define citations dating to before 1500 as evidencing Middle English, so the quotation should be in brackets if it is to remain in the warrant entry. The reference to page 415 seems to be correct; why do you say it should be "414f"? What does the "f" refer to?
 * For the same reason, it's not wrong to have quotations from Malory in braid and stour just because of the different spelling. However, the quotations should be in brackets as they are Middle English, not modern English.
 * The entries that use "Template:RQ:Mlry MrtArthr1" and the other templates mentioned by you will probably need to be fixed by hand. See my comment to DCDuring above.
 * — SGconlaw (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote shouldn't be in brackets. It should be in it's Middle English entry (or maybe  if that's a more common Middle English spelling), and the etymology of New English  should point to the Middle English entry.
 * It's f. with a dot and together it means "page 414 and the following (page)", compare for it's meaning. "page 415" is not correct as the quote starts on page 414. Alternatively it could be "page 414–415". --Tybete (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean about the Malory quote. I've updated it to "pages 414–415". I don't know if we have a policy about placing or not placing Middle English quotations in modern English entries. I suppose Middle English quotations (placed in brackets to show they are not modern English) could illustrate the development of a word, but I don't have a strong feeling about this. If a particular sense of a word cannot be attested to by any post-1500 quotations at all, then it should be transferred to a Middle English entry. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple problems surrounding entries with these template.
 * The Middle English vs Modern English dividing date is perhaps a BP issue and may not readily be resolved.
 * My immediate concern is with improperly putting references to "book" and "chapter" and the passage itself outside the template. The consequence is extra spaces and ugliness. Those are RfC matters. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For a specific example see [[discover]]. I found it doing a quick review of the 250 items in this search: "Malory insource:/RQ\:Mlry/ insource:/\}\}\:/". The total number with the problem is much less than I had originally thought. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A high-yield search is "Malory insource:/RQ\:Mlry/ Bk insource:/Bk\./". There may other searches. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I think.) DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A high-yield search is "Malory insource:/RQ\:Mlry/ Bk insource:/Bk\./". There may other searches. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I think.) DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Authorship vs. publication date
One thing we know is that Mallory died in 1471. There is a published manuscript of his work available that differs somewhat from the Caxton 1485 edition. It is highly likely, however, that the overwhelming majority of word and spelling choices were Mallory's. I suggest (for now) that the template be corrected to show the bold date to be a. 1471 and that 1485 be relegated to a position toward the back of the (verbose) citation. DCDuring (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. No objection to that, though I've indicated the date as "a. 1472" (the year after the year of the author's death) as this seems to be the practice. — SGconlaw (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Winchester Manuscript
Can this template also use the Winchester Manuscript (earliest surviving version; available here also with transcriptions)? J3133 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not? J3133 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess so. Do you mean to link these pages to the template? I'm afraid I can hardly read them. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Example:
 * "enm"

- IN Maẏ whan eúý harte floryſhyth́ ⁊ burgruyth́ for as the ſeaſon ys luſty to be holde and comfortable ſo man and woman reioyſyth and gladith of ſom᷑ cõmynge w$t$ his freyſhe flowres ffor wynter wyth hys rowȝe wyndis and blaſtis cauſyth luſty men and women to cowre and to ſyt by fyres / (link)


 * J3133 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This could be used in the “Examples” section (after this version is added). J3133 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, there's an updated version of the template at. Let me know if it suits your needs.


 * Wikitext:
 * Result:

(By the way, I don't think we should be trying to reproduce in quotations the colour of the inks used in the work. That's apart from the fact that I can hardly tell that some of the text is actually red.) — SGconlaw (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We could use italics instead (compare italics in ). J3133 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds fine. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that although the documentation states the Caxton edition is the first, Wikipedia states (Le Morte d'Arthur § The Winchester Manuscript): “Newspaper accounts announced that what Caxton had published in 1485 was not exactly what Malory had written. Oakeshott published "The Finding of the Manuscript" in 1963, chronicling the initial event and his realization that "this indeed was Malory," with "startling evidence of revision" in the Caxton edition.This was followed by much debate in the late 20th-century academia over which version is superior, Caxton's print or Malory's original vision.” J3133 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Caxton edition was the first published one at any rate. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't look like the Winchester Manuscript was published. Any comments about the updated draft template? If not, I'll implement the changes. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is it is not the original text (by Malory)—it is much edited. J3133 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * will update the documentation to mention this. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, what is the character at the end of the word ſom᷑? I'm afraid it just shows up as a box on my computer. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I browsed through the Medieval Unicode Font Initiative site and the article for scribal abbreviations at Wikipedia to find a character similar to the one in the text. I did not find an exact match and used “COMBINING UR ABOVE” (image; compare the text wherein the last stroke is missing, and a similar character for “ur” at Wikipedia (also for “er” which matches “som[er]” (“summer” in the translation))). If there is a better character then do replace it. J3133 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * so it's a diacritical above the m? — SGconlaw (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously. J3133 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like you may just have to replace it with som[er]. Or maybe you can talk to one of our coding experts like Erutuon and see if one of the fonts that support these more unusual characters can be added to the Wiktionary backend. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not disagree were it replaced with “som[er]”. Re “Any comments about the updated draft template? If not, I'll implement the changes.” I suppose not (which would be implemented into this template; compare, which uses a separate template). Note that the italics have not been added to the example. J3133 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have updated the template and documentation. At some stage it would be good to move the entries using over to this template since they are referring to the same work, and then to delete, but it looks like this has to be done manually. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was the mark at the end of the sentence (“/”, equivalent to the “.”) removed? J3133 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the translation I found, which was made before the Winchester Manuscript was discovered, is not exact (e.g., “luſty men and women” → “a lusty man and woman”; “ſyt by fyres”  → “sit by the fire”). J3133 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * must be a typo. Also, feel free to correct the modern English translation. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added another example. J3133 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The text contains the author and the title, which could replace the ones enclosed in square brackets. J3133 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Folios
Folios 32, recto – 33, verso; 235, recto; 252, recto are missing (causing incorrect links).

Note that folio 9, recto is the first; before it are “Upper Cover”, “Front Pastedown”, “Front Free Endpaper”, “… v” “Fly Leaf” 1–3v (all are blank). J3133 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * from the Winchester Manuscript? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously (this is a subsection of “Winchester Manuscript”). J3133 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether you are planning to fix the links or not. J3133 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure which folios you are referring to. From what I can see at the Malory Project website, the folio numbers run continuously from 449r to 484v, and I don't see any folios numbered 9, 32, 33, 235, or 252. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – are "The Tale of King Arthur", "Roman War Episode", etc., all part of Malory's Le Morte Darthur? I thought it was only the part marked "Morte Arthur". That's the only part I programmed the template for. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if they are parts, however, “The Roman war episode of Malory’s Morte Darthur” (link) etc. can be found. It would be useful to be able to add quotations from any page of the book—I suppose the template can detect the section based on the page. J3133 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. OK, I'll assume they are all parts of Le Morte Darthur. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've updated the template. You can now also specify a chapter name. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the template will now determine the chapter name if the folio number is specified. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of the work
[Discussion relocated to a new section for clarity.]

The template states the date of the Winchester Manuscript as “1470–1483” and of the 1485 edition as “a. 1472”. As mentioned above, the text was edited/changed for the 1485 edition (e.g., see the RFV of chierte (which will be archived here): “20” and “telle hit” were added and “knew” was changed to “wyſt”); thus, the date of the 1485 edition should be changed to “1470–1485” (because “Le Morte d'Arthur was completed by Malory around 1470” (Wikipedia) and the Winchester Manuscript date is also 1470). J3133 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the template currently indicates, "1470–1483" is the range of dates during which the Winchester Manuscript was produced (by scribes). The date "a. 1472", on the other hand, indicates when Malory composed the text; 1472 is the year following the year of his death. To clarify, are you saying that since Caxton modified the text, we should instead indicate "1470–1485" as the range of dates when the text was composed? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes; for example, if a word or a spelling was first used by Caxton in 1485, stating that it is from a. 1472 is incorrect. J3133 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. ✅. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)