EtheyB

Psalms

Thank you for helping with the psalms! I am not sure that we need to bold the English KJV title. Firstly, its singled out in the infobox, secondly, many people know the psalms by their title in the Book of Common Prayer. I am sure that we don't need two Latin titles, and bold them only if well-known incipits of compositions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I understand your viewpoint. I was attempting to add clarity and uniformity to the psalm articles which are irregular in terms of emboldening and Bible chapter infoboxes. I haven not added any Latin titles, only emboldened them. I think it is certain that the Wikipedia style guide would have the Latin incipits in bold (MOS:BOLDSYN), but the English incipits are more debatable (apart from well-known examples such as Psalms 23 and 119). I will proceed with reformatting the Latin incipits and adding the missing infoboxes but will leave the English incipits as regular text. Thank you! EtheyB (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Psalms are irregular, and consistency is wanted. I suggest that we consistently have no bold titles, - both English (KJV) and Latin are singled out in the infobox, - easy to see if you arrived at the right article. Wikipedia is rather conservative about bolding: only redirects in the lead should be bold, and not even all of them (when too many, certainly not two Latin names). Most of our readers will not even read Latin, therefore the extra attention to the Latin seems undue weight (to me). If you have to have some bold, please make sure to have the quotation marks outside the bolding. But better not, if you ask me. (We have a style guide, no rule.) - Other things to look for: the alternative numbering (missing in Psalm 2 as I just noticed), infobox image (some I found related to the wrong psalm, caused by the different counting), wording of the introduction. I am in the process of going over the psalms, one per week, and arrived at 120. Your help is welcome! - Could you add Hewbrew texts? Some are missing, beginning with Psalm 72. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the Latin bold titles are undue weight. They are (historically and presently) very commonly referred to by these names (i.e., in musical compositions, Latin rubrics, the Book of Common Prayer and other breviaries/psalters).

One possible alternative would be to restructure the (currently quite unwieldy) lead to read something like: "Psalm 1 is the first psalm of the Book of Psalms. It is also known by its Latin incipit "Beatus vir, qui non abiit"..." I will move the suggestion over to the talk page as you suggested. I am sad to hear about Yoninah's passing.

I will gladly take a look at those suggested fixes too when I have the time! EtheyB (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not happy with a lead going to Latin right away. This is the English Wikipedia, with many Jewish readers, and the Psalms were originally in Hebrew, and numbered the way the Hebrew Bible has it. After that we need a reference to the English title. Latin came later. The discussions about the lead should still be in the archives of Talk:Psalms. Excuse me for not seeing your reply when I posted below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw you doing some bolding, don't need the extra-long edit summary, especially not the link to your talk where it seems to disappear fast. How is this: you start a discussion about this general style matter at Talk:Psalms, instead of edit warring? You and I may not be the only ones interested. Sadly Yoninah who did most groundwork died a few years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thinking further: the alternative names are not the Latin (or Hebrew) incipits, but just Psalm(us) 118 for Psalm 119. Don't tell me please that it is known by something long in Latin. It isn't, - if anything it's known as "Beati". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Marriages of Napoleon's relatives with German royalty

Hi EtheyB. In April of last year you posted a substantial addition to Confederation of the Rhine article that, as you said, was a translation of the German article (de:Reinbund). You posted at one point that the new kings of Bavaria and Württemberg sought marriages with Napoleon's relatives in order to legitimize their monarchies. It is the reverse that is true, as as is said in the German article: it is Napoleon who sought a dynastic legitimization of his rule by marrying his relatives into Bavarian and Württemberg royalty. I corrected that passage. Lubiesque (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)