Template talk:RQ:Browne Pseudodoxia Epidemica

I made Template:RQ:Browne Errors, which is the same but a whole lot simpler. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad: I actually simplified it somewhat, but the changes were reverted (temporarily) because of an ongoing discussion about quotation templates. Also, I'm not sure it's very useful for you to create quotation templates when there are ones which already exist for the same works. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure it's useful. I'm adding dates to quotes in Wiktionary at an astonishing speed, which is of great importance. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad: Well, thanks very much for that, but am I hoping too much that you're checking if the quotations are correct and actually found in the edition that you're citing? For example, as far as I've been able to ascertain, the earliest version of Pseudodoxia Epidemica available online is the 1650 one, so it's going to be hard to know if the quotations actually appear in the 1st edition (1646). — SGconlaw (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I check all of them. Sometimes the quote I find has an extra word or two, or something like "gravemaker" appears as "grave-maker", so I fix it. Am I going to go a library and find the exact quote for the 1646 version? Hell no. Do I think having a rough year is better than having no year? Yes. Would I even care if there was a slight difference between the 1646 version or the 1650 version? Of course not. Do I sound like a moody bitch right now? Probably. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Pages missing

@Sgconlaw Pages 69–70 (link to 68; text from 7th line of 5th section, page 92; to page 95, 1st line; 1672 edition). J3133 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It is noted at the template; there is, however, a quotation from this page. An edition that has the text needs to be added. J3133 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please clarify? What are the links to pages 92 and 95 for? What does "[i]t is noted at the template" mean? — SGconlaw (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: For the missing text. “Noted at the template”, if not obvious, means there is a note at the template (<!--pages 69 and 70 missing-->). J3133 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: oh, I see. I forgot that I added the hidden comment in the template code. I found a copy of the 2nd edition (1650) at Google Books and used that for the two missing pages; see if it works. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: “/mode/1up” needs to be removed from the Google Books link. J3133 (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@J3133: oops. OK, fixed. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs fixing?

@Sgconlaw The current definition has lots of stuff in it like {{#ifeq:{{{edition|}}}|1st|dosomething|otherwise, something else}}. This looks wrong to me: Since 1st edition is intended to be the default, it will be empty in that case rather than having the value 1st, so you won't get the expected result. I think you need to reverse all the if conditions so they check for edition=2nd and fall back to the first edition otherwise (i.e. when the user either gives |edition=1st explicitly or leaves it unspecified). Benwing2 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: yes, am aware of that. Have been busy over the last few days. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2:  Done. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)