Talk:Richard Jack (mathematician)

Sources for future article expansion
The last is clearly sourced from something closer to the time but for now it seems impossible to figure out what. Maybe a local paper or London magazine of the era. — Llywelyn II   18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the miniedit war
Go reread the cited policy at WP:NOTBROKEN. Guadaloupe is the correct spelling for this quote and, like the linked policy already states,
 * Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect.

There's a need for a commented out < ! - - sic - - > to avoid well-meaning but entirely mistaken attempts to "correct" the spelling, but there is no reason to go out of our way to call attention to the spelling having shifted over the last few centuries by adding a distracting sic directly to the visible text itself. The other section of WP:NOTBROKEN describing a general policy of fixing the spelling mistakes of editors has no bearing, given that the spelling Guadaloupe wasn't incorrect for the time and needs to be maintained within the quote. Similarly, I actually agree with the WP:POINT-challenged editor that Encyclopædia would be preferrable, but the controlling policy is actually MOS:LIGATURE, which specifically calls out the EB style as something to be avoided.

Thank you for your service and your help improving the project! Do look for a better way to apply it, though, since it isn't needed in this article for any of those points. — Llywelyn II   15:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just remembered that I hadn't noted my response here. For anyone coming across this talk page, I had responded as soon as I saw it; please see my response here. Shortly after that, an admin restored the exact same spelling correction which I had made, and, thankfully, that has not been reverted again. I haven't bothered restoring the indisputably correct Encyclopædia Britannica ligature because, frankly, it's not worth the trouble.  M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible 4th book
was published anonymously. Sotheran mentions that an "old MS note" on the half-title of his copy reads Jack, which he supposes to mean Richard Jack who would've been in London at the time, but I can't find anything else to support it. — Llywelyn II   22:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)