Index talk:Koran - Rodwell - 2nd ed.djvu

Book review

I couldn't locate any book review of this work but there are book reviews available for some other works of J. M. Rodwell. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Problematic pages

• Page 444 is dog-eared, hiding a good portion of the text. --Jerome Charles Potts (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Page 443 shows page number 429, when it should be 427. --Jerome Charles Potts (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

IAR

Obviously, the most important thing is to make the text available without typos, even if it just involves copy pasting chunks of text from other transcriptions of this work on other websites. Red transcriptions are better than none. These formatting notes are only intended to make the work more useful and consistent across surahs. — LlywelynII 13:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Numbering

The numbering adopted by this volume is well meaning but rather arbitrary. All the same, it should be followed in creating pages for the surahs. I followed the volume in using roman numerals, but there should be redirects from their arabic equivalent (e.g., surah [i.] would be at The_Koran (Rodwell)/I with a redirect from The_Koran (Rodwell)/1 and anyone looking for it under its usual name Surah 28 just needs to use the chart on the main page to find it).

If this is our best regarded translation of the Koran (the typos make that seem dubious but it does seem rather scholarly and well-informed about the Midrash and Biblical parallels of certain precepts), it may even be worth it to write a surah-link template that can switch between the two systems automatically. — LlywelynII 11:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Indentation

(i) No real complaint if other editors finishing up the project want to convert everything to indentless formatting and (ii) there's no need to use indents instead of <br>s for surahs like the Excordium where no verse is long enough to wrap anyway. (iii) The indents are the original style of the work, but of course it's a bit of a pain to add them and it's not the general style across all works here at Wikisource. (iv) I did include them on the sections and surahs I worked on—where the verses were long enough for them to matter—because they do a better and more attractive job of showing which lines of text go in which verses, without needing unattractive full blank lines between verses. It also creates better spacing for the verse numbers, since they go on the left instead of the right in this work. (v) Any future conversion should be total, though—at least within a single surah. It's just awkward and silly to do something like this to a single page in the middle of a surah. — LlywelynII 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I have gone through the work and removed the first-line indentation. We don't have a lot of bright-line style rules, so it's best not to deviate from these without very good reason. In the case of this rule the absence of first-line indentation is deliberate in order to allow different user agents (such as ebook readers) to apply their own default stylesheet. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Verse counters

Verses should be included using the {{overfloat left}} template rather than the unattractive and misplaced {{verse}} template. It should be preceded by an {{anchor}} template to permit linking to each decade of verses.

You can just cut-&-paste this formatting:
{{anchor|###}}
{{overfloat left|align=right|###}}

 — LlywelynII 11:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Links

The archaic spellings and unhelpful abbreviations of the volume make it very useful to provide glosses and links to the references being used. Most of Rodwell's abbreviations can be found by searching the Preface or, in the case of "Mischna" references, finding and linking the nearest-looking name at Translation:Talmud. Given that it's a 19th-century British volume, all the Biblical links so far are to the relevant books and chapters of the KJV, as with Matt. ii. 5 being linked as [[Bible_(King_James)/Matthew#Chapter 2|{{abbr|Matt|Matthew}}.{{nbsp}}ii. 5]]. — LlywelynII 12:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A.H. dates

Dates given in a.h. with the a.d. date nearby can be left alone apart from formatting the text with {{sc}}, but dates given only in a.h. should be glossed using the {{abbr}} template (e.g., a.h. YYYY can be run through the formula 0.970229 × YYYY + 621.5643 and displayed as {{abbr|{{sc|a.h.}}{{nbsp}}YYYY|A.D. YYYY (±1)}}. Alternatively, a chart can be consulted to find which particular two Dionysian years overlap the particular Hijri year, displayed as {{abbr|{{sc|a.h.}}{{nbsp}}YYYY|A.D. YYYY or YYYY}}). — LlywelynII 12:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreign text

Similarly, it's also helpful to provide glosses of the Latin, French, German, etc. text Rodwell left untranslated using the {{abbr}} template (e.g., the text's anc. fonds is more helpfully rendered {{lang|fr|{{abbr|anc. fonds|French: ancien fonds, “ancient collection.”}}}}).  — LlywelynII 11:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)