@MonicaCellio Appeal written. Edits welcome. I suggest featuring just this post and not the other two at this point, since this one motivates and points you to the other two.

@IsaacMoses thank you! Very nicely done. Tags adjusted.

@MonicaCellio thanks!

Just a thought: should mi.yodeya@gmail.com send the appeal post and/or the jewcer site to various Jewish charitable organizations? (I don't have any in particular mind. I'm sure some must exist.)

(no need to reply to me in particular. just starting conversation)

@DoubleAA that's an interesting idea -- need to think more about it. (Sorry about the ping; I'm just trying to connect this message to the suggestion.) We'd need to identify some, and make sure we don't come across as spammy, but it feels like there must be suitable recipients out there. Sadly, I don't know very much about fundraising in the Jewish world. Do the bodies that fund grants that take months to get and are usually bigger also do small stuff like this?

@MonicaCellio I would expect that as a rule, yes. For something this small, we're probably best-off focusing on individuals, starting with the closest ones, as you've structured the appeal thusfar.

I followed Jewcer's advice on the setup; they know more than I do. Once we can get some more participation (not just dollars but number of donors), we'll be in a better position to broaden the appeal I think. We should all (who are willing) talk with our individual connections now.

Since every question is going to have an original question URL, it it sensible to put that in a footnote, as it is in the draft posts I'm looking at?

It would seem better just to have this information in a box or a sidebar or just in a consistent place at the end of the question, rather than throwing it into a footnote. Neater. I think.

@TRiG Interesting point. I do like the idea of tightening up the design. Does your evaluation change if there are other footnotes there? I think that part of the reason this datum became a footnote in C-MY? is that it's partially in lieu of copying the links to each electronic resource (especially Hebrewbooks) linked in the original post.

I misunderstood one thing about Jewcer. I knew that it takes a certain level of donations (now met) and a certain number of page views (rolling window, not yet met) for the project to show up in their featured list -- and that's fine for us at this stage. What I hadn't realized was that we also won't be searchable until then. Another dozen unique, direct visits would fix that.

@MonicaCellio Alright. The main goal right now is to collect donations from within the community, right?

@IsaacMoses I think it's mainly that I find footnotes on titles ugly.

But also there's the repetition aspect. This information appears for every single question. Having a standard place for it would seem simpler.

Also, if you have two questions on a page, the sources for the two of them will be in a jumble of other information at the bottom of the page, which just feels off to me.

And I tend to think of footnotes as exceptional. Constant footnotes on every page seem wrong.

The amount I'm writing about this might leave the impression that it's something I feel strongly about. I don't really.

@TRiG This wasn't an issue when we introduced this format in C-MY, since we were putting pretty much exactly one question per page.

... I see how it will be an issue in DoA-MY

@TRiG I appreciate the fullness of your analysis.

@IsaacMoses they recommend starting with direct personal contacts; for us that's mainly "within the community", but I think talking to other people we know who might be inclined to help is good too. (I mentioned it to a few folks at the minyan this morning, for instance, but didn't make a broad announcement.)

End of a Q in H-MY (and P-MY):

Bottom of a page in C-MY:

(Using Windows Snip. Thanks, @MonicaCellio)

Possible alternative, putting the original question URL up top:

@IsaacMoses I do think that this is neater. The "Sources" thing might be a problem if you have multiple sources and want to be specific about which source is the source for which statement. ;) So you could use footnotes for that, but not for "Original Question".

@IsaacMoses I like that. Takes up less space, too.

@TRiG ... and if there are two for one book entry (as there have been on occasion), they can share that line, separated by a comma

@TRiG I think that having one kind of note at the end of the Q&A and another kind of note at the bottom of the page could look messy, which may have been the reason we didn't do footnotes, per se, for the sources in the first two books. But putting the URL up top removes that interaction, so we can use footnotes for sourcing.

@MonicaCellio @Scimonster @DoubleAA @msh210 @NoachmiFrankfurt What do you think?

@IsaacMoses Sounds good.

@Scimonster Which? The new idea?

@IsaacMoses Yeah, putting it at the top.

And footnotes for sources.

@IsaacMoses Where in the chat should I read from?

@msh210 Here. Thanks

@IsaacMoses URL up top and footnotes for notes sounds fine to me.

While we're at it, are there any other differences in format from how we did H- and P-MY that we ought to adopt this time around?

(Immediate answers not needed.)

@IsaacMoses I agree with TRiG about not having it as a regular footnote. I think I prefer the hagada system of no footnote numbers, only explanatory endnotes. But I seem to be outvoted in the last few chat messages here.

@msh210 Well, defend your preference, if you please!

@IsaacMoses An explanatory endnote is less cluttered in the text itself (no numbers) and doesn't require someone looking at only the endnote to check back to see what it's a source for.

@msh210 I don't get the second point

@msh210 But if there are multiple sources in one post, it can be confusing without numbered footnotes.

But what are we doing with defining jargon (which cannot be defined in the text itself)? I think I saw seemingly contradictory indications re whether we're defining terms in footnotes or an end-matter glossary.

@msh210 We're doing a glossary.

@IsaacMoses Okay, then what I said stands.

@msh210 I found the contradiction. Fixing it ...

> If the name used is not English, and there is a commonly-used English alternative, put that into a footnote.

I think it would make more sense to just translate it in-place.

@IsaacMoses You come to the end of the article and see two footnotes citing Rav Yoel and Rav Kook respectively. You want to know what each one is cited as saying. If they're numbered "1. Divre Yoel 1:1" and "2. Olas R'ia 1:1", you have to scan the whole article. If they're labeled "Rabbi Nebenzahl's explanation of shofar is based on Divre Yoel 1:1" and "The Bobover Rebbe's explanation of confusing the accuser is based on Olas R'ia 1:1" it's much clearer.

@msh210 Verbose, though.

@IsaacMoses True.

I edited the style guideline, which had been underadapted from C-MY's.

@IsaacMoses Y'yasher kochacha.

@msh210 Baruch tihyeh.

It seems that we have unanimity, so far, regarding moving the original question URL up to under the title. I think that I'll just handle this when I do the Word job. I'd be doing copy/paste by piece at that point, anyway.

@Scimonster parenthetical, I assume? "According to $Obscure_Hebrew_title ($English_translation), ..."?

@IsaacMoses ah, I see. Thanks; I agree with your revision there.

@IsaacMoses near-unanimity; @msh210 isn't in favor because it clutters the title, right? (My initial reaction was similar, but in thinking about where to put it if not there, I couldn't come up with anything better.)

I just redid the answer to the second-party edit requests to include direct links to all the posts, generated by a script.

If people feel it's worth it, i can also add the usernames who did the original one - i still have the code open.

@MonicaCellio I thought @msh210 was just objecting to footnotes.

@MonicaCellio If we're to have explanatory rather than numbered footnotes, then I thnk it makes a lot of sense to include the Q source as one. Otherwise, having the Q URL separately above/below the numbered footnotes is also clutter, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, I guess. cc @IsaacMoses

@Scimonster Thanks! I took out the numbers and the "subtract 1" instruction, which are unnecessary with the lists. Yes, usernames would be useful.

@MonicaCellio Well, titles are titles and needn't be translated at all, I think.

(Deep thought of the day: "titles are titles".)

@IsaacMoses Done.

@Scimonster Again, thanks!

It seems to have ordered it slightly differently this time around. Interesting. I guess it's the random ordering among answers with the same score.

@msh210 yeah, I wrote that before realizing we were really talking about jargon here. Sorry about that. Anyway, I've been inlining translations of words where I don't want to remove the Hebrew word. I wasn't thumbing my nose at the (then-) style guide; I just missed that it called for something else.

@Scimonster Oh. Automation! nice.

@IsaacMoses "generated by a script" :)

@Scimonster thanks for doing that, and especially thanks for scripting it so it's repeatable! Having the names is very helpful; I've already gotten tripped up by starting to read something for review and only then noticing that I'd done it. :-)

@MonicaCellio Inlining is good, too, especially if it's brief. Why make someone turn back to a glossary for a one-word translation?

@IsaacMoses agreed. The glossary might expand on a term (briefly :-) ), but they should still be able to read the answer.

Where is our bibliography, and what goes in it? Is that where we should mention like the authors and dates of the books (instead of the glossary)?

@Scimonster Right now, books and authors are identified in the glossary. I think that may be sufficient. In most cases, we didn't actually look stuff up in paper books to begin with, so the best information we can offer to direct someone who wants to follow up is "Go to the original question link, and find the HB (or whatever) link there."

And should we be identifying every single sefer mentioned, if possible, or can we just leave it up to the interested party to google?

@Scimonster I think we are trying to do that. Did we meet that standard in P-MY? I think we tried to footnote most in C-MY, more or less at the last minute, and didn't get all of them.

@IsaacMoses I wasn't around for PMY. But all right.

I feel like a bunch of the second-party editing is in the glossary, not the post. :P

@Scimonster Better now than at the last minute

... maybe better earlier, but time's unidirectional arrow