Index talk:Douay Rheims Bible 1635 edition.pdf

Rules and help

Proof reading policy

The general principle is only change something to correct the typographical conventions of the day.

• replace the funny looking "f" with an "s"
• replace "vv" with "w".
• use a capital "W" when it's obviously starting a sentence.
• just use a normal "ct", not the joining one
• ā, ē, ō, ū use am/an, em/en, om/on, um/un
• there are a couple of different styles of ampersands, always use the standard one "&"
• use æ whenever it's part of a latin.
• use the double prime ″ (U+2033) character for annotation references.
• when using greek, use the plain text, not the italic looking stuff.
• If something is clearly a typo, where something has been added in for absolutely no reason whatsoever and it's clearly a typesetting/publisher's error, leave it out. (I'll provide an example in due course). If in doubt, leave it in. But on the other hand, don't add in a letter that's missing even though it's an obvious typo.

And template usage:

• don't use {{illegible}} without first checking the alternate scans.
• For verse numbering, use {{verse}} and not the number. And put directly in front of the word, not with a space. E.g. ²Text-here NOT 2. Text-here
• Pay attention to {{hyphenated word start}} and {{hyphenated word end}} this book uses it a lot. ({{hws}} and {{hwe}})
• when doing margin notes, when it's a footnote with (a), (b), (c), or a star, use <ref></ref> otherwise it's {{MarginNote}}

DavidPorter65 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Better scans for verification of illegible text

The better clarity of these scans helps when trying to figure out difficult to read stuff. If unsure what it says, or tempted to use {{illegible}} check these first. Note that some things are always difficult in every scan. In particular the italic citation references are very hard to read at times — use best guess for these. (or if you're really keen, look up the referenced text and see if you can find the exact reference that way!)

• OT 1 best scan [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000020748906;view=1up;seq=10]
• OT 1 alternative [https://archive.org/stream/holiebiblefaithf00mart_s] has minor variations in spelling and punctuation, so please just don't use large chunks holus-bolus.
• OT 2 best scan [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000020748913;view=1up;seq=5]
• OT 2 alternative [https://archive.org/details/holiebiblefaithf00mart] has minor variations in spelling and punctuation, so please just don't use large chunks holus-bolus.
• NT clearer scan [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000020748920;view=1up;seq=5;size=125
• NT clearer scan for NT [https://archive.org/details/nevvtestamentofi00mart]. has minor variations in spelling and punctuation, so please just don't use large chunks holus-bolus. Good for verifying difficult to read parts.
• An alternative scan for NT: [https://archive.org/details/1582DouaiRheimsDouayRheimsFirstEdition3Of31582NewTestament] has minor variations in spelling and punctuation, so please just don't use large chunks holus-bolus. And please, ignore the watermark for fatimamovement.com. For the sake of your immortal soul, don't ever visit their blasphemous web site. Pray God will have mercy on them in consideration for their devotion to the Douay-Rheims.
• Sometimes drbo.org can get you out of tight spot. Particularly when the word is unfamiliar and/or illegible.

DavidPorter65 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Source files

• wikimedia source: [[1]]
• archive.org [[2]]

DavidPorter65 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The three original volumes have already been retyped and are hosted here. There are a lot of mistyped words, particularly in the annotations. This can save a lot of typing, provided the spelling of the words is updated and errors corrected to match the 1635 edition used here. ChristusRex (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion below here please

Alternative source

@DavidPorter65: As I'm transcribing the pages, I'm finding that there's more and more places where the text is faded if not completely unreadable. This begs the question: why don't we use, rather than a processed b&w version of the original scan, the original scan itself? A quick search leads to the source scans of what is hosted here, and they are much readable. V1, V2, V3 ChristusRex (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChristusRex: I agree they are much better scans. I can't download the full pdf without being a member of a partner institution. Are you? Can you download it? The other problem is, in wikisource we can only update the source if it's < 100 mb. How big are these? Making the extra pages shouldn't be too difficult… DavidPorter65 (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: I don't have a partner account but I can easily download with a program all the pages overnight. One thing to note is that only 429 pages of the second volume are available. We'll have to fill the missing chunk with the lower res scans, unfortunately. The result will probably be a 3-5 GB pdf which means it'll have to have it's own page. ChristusRex (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChristusRex: Your link to the NT on hathitrust is still the old yellowed earlier 1582 version. So you'd still have to find a scan for NT for the 1635 edition. Unless and until we can find that, I wouldn't want to start officially using the new scans, no matter how good they are. The problem is, you would want to list three pages has under the "volumes" section in the title page, but they wouldn't really be volumes from the same work. I want to maintain that integrity. I guess you could slice out the current NT portion and use that if you couldn't find a better one. (I wish I could remember where I downloaded my pdf from…) DavidPorter65 (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a 1635 edition of the NT, only of the OT, if you look here. The closest there is, is a 1633 edition considered to be the fourth edition of the Rheims NT. It is available here and is equal in content (minus spelling variations) to the 1600 edition. If we're looking for the authentic Rheims, it's probably as far as we can go before falling into the revisions. I guess what is the most important is settling on an edition from 1592-1633 without any pages missing. As far as the unrevised Rheims and Douay having been released as a complete set, I don't think such a thing exists. Edit: on further inspection, the 1633 edition NT must have been sold with the 1635 OT since they are both from the same publisher.ChristusRex (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChristusRex: I've updated the Better Scans section. Thank you for finding these. I might even print these out for myself one day (one page at a time!). I'm also concerned about not having permission from hathitrust, if we could find a way to download their scans, does it mean we wouldn't be allowed to use them? Wikisource are strict on this if they find you. For me, I'll be continuing with what we've done so far. I hope you will too. DavidPorter65 (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: From their website: Public Domain, Google-digitized. We are free to use them. I'll let you know once the download is finished.ChristusRex (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: I've created a page for the 1635 edition here and I've added all the relevant details to the discussion page. I've also added some links to some transcripts I found that could save us a lot of time. I've only got the first OT volume and the NT uploaded, I'll upload the last one when I can find a better scan. Also, apparently the fatimamovement scan of the NT you were working on is the 1633 version (sourced from my uploaded scan) with a 1582 title page. This means you'll be able to bring over your work on it!ChristusRex (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: Can you confirm you've seen my message above? ChristusRex (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChristusRex: I've seen it. I like the pictures, they are very beautiful. I wish you the best with this project. But I will continue to work with the index pages and project I started. Feel free to use any of my page's proofreading in your new project. Also,m my comment of 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC) was incorrect. The NT on the hathitrust did match the 1635 here. My mistake, and apolgies for that. DavidPorter65 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: Ah, I understand. In that case, if I may offer a suggestion, it would probably best to clarify that what you have uploaded here and are working on is the 1987 Gordon Winrod facsimile which is a mix of the 1635 Old Testament and the 1582 New Testament. There's more info in the preface of the facsimile on hathitrust that I've linked you and on here as well. What I'm working on here is the real 1633-1635 three-volume edition. ChristusRex (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChristusRex: I think you might be right. That probably is the better one. Thanks for your diligence in finding this. I don't know why I was never able to uncover all this. The problem for me is that I have taken some liberties with my transcription because, because I've had an eye on how I'd want it to look once the transduction was done, and I wanted it to be "correct" so I could use it. That's why I kind of hoped that I could do it all myself… Anyway I guess that if I join you on what you the 1633, then I'll need to be much more strict with how I transcribe it. I see however that you have accepted some of the rules I laid down for this project here, so I guess we can go along with those? DavidPorter65 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: I have no issue with taking liberties and not making a character for character copy of the text. I know in some place there is some problematic formatting used such as words at the end of the paragraph being repeated in the beginning of the next one which can't really be solved with the hyphenated word feature (unless I'm wrong). Since the information is so precious it would be a shame to potentially cause ambiguity in the text. To make sure we're on the same page, it would probably best to add every single "correction" we intend on making to the discussion page. ChristusRex (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)