Template talk:RQ:Tyndale NT

Use of a different source
This is not about the KJV but in can it link to the 1526 version at the Internet Archive instead of the 1836 reprint at Google Books? J3133 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Possible, but the formula for determining the Internet Archive page numbers would have to be changed. This is more tricky because it is numbered by folios, not pages, and the scan has two folios in one screen. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The documentation of this template states “As the 1526 edition is currently not available online, ”. How is that true if it is available online at the Internet Archive? J3133 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you found it, not me! I didn’t see this before. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the Internet Archive, this scan was uploaded on 29 June 2020. was created in 2018. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How would I add quotations from the 1526 version now? Because this template states that the quotation is from the 1836 reprint. J3133 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can try and have a look at updating this template in about five or six hours' time. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the title in the template be “The newe Testamēt” instead of “The Newe Testamēt”? The title page of the book uses a lowercase “n”. Also, should it be with a long s (“The newe Teſtamēt”)? J3133 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The full title written in “[...]” in the template also capitalizes some words and does not use the long s. J3133 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the template and it seems to be working, but haven't fully tested it yet. Please try it out. (The documentation also hasn't been fully updated yet.) As for your other comments, for consistency I generally stick to modern typographic norms when providing bibliographic information such as book titles and imprint information (place of publication, name of publisher, publication year, etc.), so I capitalize important words and do not use the long s. However, for the actual text quoted I would try to match it closely. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the second example in the documentation folio is cxxii but it links to the cxxiii folio. J3133 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it also looks like the foliation in the 1526 and 1836 editions is different. I'm checking this now. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should text in square brackets be the same as written in the book (e.g., “he [Ieſus]” or “he [Jesus]”)? Also, the template has “vnto” and “Jesus” (instead of “Iesus”) in the title. Do you stick to modern typographic norms for i and j but not u and v? J3133 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes no, I think the editorial additions in brackets should just be in modern English. For the bibliographic information, come to think of it the only letter I have not been using is the long s, because it is unfamiliar to many people (who may mistake it for an f), whereas ligatures like æ and œ, i for j, and v for u are readily understandable. By the way, I think I have fixed the foliation issue in the template; the Internet Archive pagination was slightly irregular. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you meant “no” (i.e., not the same as written in the book, which is not in modern English).
 * Indeed. Since it's an editorial addition anyway, there's no reason to follow the typography of the work. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that you used “ã” in . I used macrons instead of tildes in the documentation, although the shapes of the diacritics vary in the book, some being more slanted or wavy than others. Should I use tildes instead? J3133 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was looking at an enlarged version of the text, trying to decide if it is a macron or a tilde. It looks more like a tilde to me. I had a look at tilde and macron (diacritic) to see whether one is preferred over the other as a mark of omission, but it looks like early texts used them interchangeably. Perhaps use the tilde then. I'll also change the macron in the title of the work to a tilde as that what it appears to be in the Internet Archive version. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 1836 edition examples you used spaces before “/” but it does not look like there are spaces before them. J3133 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to say it looks fine when I view it, though. Also, I’ve confirmed that the 1836 edition must have republished a different version of the Tyndale NT from the Internet Archive version as the foliation is different. I’ll need to update the two examples on the documentation page. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, in page 241 of the 1836 edition, it looks like “Simon/ Simon/ beholde”, with no spaces before “/”. J3133 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean in the actual Google Books scan. Am thinking it would look rather strange if there was no space before the slash, though. It would also be inconsistent from the Internet Archive scan. I wonder if there is a Unicode character for the virgula suspensiva? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * from what I can tell, there have been proposals to add a Unicode character for the virgula suspensiva but it hasn't yet been added. For the short virgule which is used in the 1836 edition, it is possible to cheat by using &amp;#11805; (left lower slanted stroke; for example, "Simon&#11805; Simon&#11805; beholde", but I wonder if it would be too troublesome for editors to use. It might be more straightforward to use a slash. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Error in template
The second wikitext of the first example does not add “, folio clvii, recto” (including the link). J3133 (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. There was an error in the template. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Using j in folio numbers
The documentation states that j must be changed to i in folio numbers of the 1st edition but not the 1836 edition. It can be used now because I changed the module. J3133 (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Should chapter numbers use j, as the book does? J3133 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, cool! In that case please update the documentation of this template. I suppose we can just suggest to editors that they can indicate Roman numerals as they appear in the work, including j for i. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Using J instead of I
The capital I letters seem to be capital J letters. Should J or I be used (e.g., for I, the pronoun)? J3133 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, is that an I or a J? I assumed it was a J when it was used at the beginning of Jesus and Jhon, but now that you have pointed it out I see that it is also used for the pronoun I. Maybe it is supposed to be an I? Have to say I'm not very familiar with the script used in the work. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What are the characters?
Folio xliij, verso, lines 3–5 of the chapter, “/ as yt ys written in the prophett [two characters] beholde”. J3133 (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured out previously that the character at the end of prophett is the Latin small letter is (&amp;#42861; &#42861;), which means the word is prophettis. Unfortunately this is one of those characters that is poorly supported by many browsers and may just appear as a rectangle. As for the character before beholde, I have no idea – it looks like it indicates a quotation. You could try having a look at Scribal abbreviation and the Medieval Unicode Font Initiative. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This document which is a proposal to add medieval punctuation characters to Unicode may also be of interest, though on a quick browse I didn't see any mention of a mark similar to the one appearing before the word beholde, unless it is some sort of paragraphus or positura. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In this image with colors, from the British Library’s website, of the same page, part of the character is a different color. J3133 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good detective work! So it looks like a virgula suspensiva in black ink, and some sort of quotation mark shaped like a mirror-image L in red ink. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Other books
See also the Pentateuch (1884 edition), 1534 revised edition and another work by William Tyndale. Wiktionary also does not have a template for the Coverdale Bible (Wikipedia) but there are quotations. There are also other editions of the Tyndale Bible. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say prioritize creating quotation templates for first editions of key works (or if these are unavailable online, the earliest available online edition if it is a very important work). Not sure it is necessary to have templates for multiple editions of the same work unless particular editions are regarded as important. What would your prioritized list be? — SGconlaw (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the Pentateuch by William Tyndale is important because it would be the oldest of the Modern English Bible templates containing the Old Testament. J3133 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mistakes in the folio numbering
I have found mistakes in the folio numbering:
 * 1) cxlj, clxij, cxliij;
 * 2) clxxxvij, clxxxxviij, clxxxix;
 * 3) fo.. cxcij;
 * 4) fo.. ccx;
 * 5) ccxlij, cclxiij, ccxliiij;
 * 6) ccxliiij, cclxv, ccxlvj;
 * 7) cclxvi (should be j);
 * 8) cccxviij (without “fo.”);
 * 9) focccxxvj (should be “fo. cccxxvj”). J3133 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You mean that the mistakes are in the source? Are they isolated errors or do they result in subsequent folios being wrongly numbered? If they are isolated errors, we can just point these out to editors on the template description page, and advise them to use the correct folio numbers. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If by “source” you mean the one at the Internet Archive, then yes (I provided links to the pages containing the mistakes, you can see them there); it seems that they are isolated. J3133 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Oh good. I think it's only necessary to point out numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6 (which I took the liberty of numbering). The rest are just stylistic errors – incorrect punctuation, missing the word fo., etc.; the numbers themselves are not wrong. I think we can trust editors to figure out what those numbers are. Go ahead and mention the printing errors in the template description page – I'd suggest at "Template:RQ:Tyndale NT/documentation" (under "1st edition (1526)"). — SGconlaw (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

RQ:Tyndale NT
Hey! Can you please add a bit to Template:RQ:Tyndale NT that accepts capital Roman numerals? So the verse number shows up at, for example, alway Dunderdool (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * And then, of course, ask Benwing to change all the redirects, then delete the redirect, only to have me stubbornly continue using the redirects later. Dunderdool (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had read the template documentation, you would know that Tyndale doesn't have verses, only chapters. The second parameter takes regular Arabic numbers, so you would enter "28" instead of "XXVIII". I did that and put the correct folio reference in the template at alway, so now it links to the correct pair of pages. Normally I would tell you to use Internet Archive's search on the version that's linked to on the page for the template, but the OCR is useless for the 1526 edition (it doesn't help that the word wraps from one line to the next). I really wish there was more standardization between templates, but you tend to ignore the documentation- so you probably would get things wrong anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant chapter and not verse. Same thing, really. There are loads of other cases where I kept the Roman numerals instead of converting them to Arabic numbers, so the template really needs fixing Dunderdool (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * so why didn’t you just (1) look at the documentation of, and (2) update the quotations accordingly? what standardization are you referring to? — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did all that, but it was too late by then. Dunderdool (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * too late? In what sense? — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Problems with 1534 edition
Hi! For some reason chapter numbers are not showing up when using this template to quote the revised 1534 edition; see the quote at. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. J3133 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask, "What 1534 edition?" Would you please make it a habit to update the template documentation if you have updated the template itself? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I should have checked the history more carefully to see who added that, I suppose. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)