Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Latest comment: 23 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
There's an AfD outcome suggesting a merge, with an outcome claiming that they are identical (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Ham. 78.A.5), but my reading is that they are different manuscripts. The might well sometimes both be called the 'Hamilton Psalter', but it seems that there is more than one: the manuscript catalogued as Ham. 119 and that catalogued as Ham. 78.A.5. They seem to written (most) about a century apart, just sharing the same 19th century owner. It might be better to keep them separate. @Knowswheretheirtowelis, Cnilep, and FaviFake: thoughts? Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
All I know about this topic is what I read in the articles. I guess that makes me "just idiotic", though I kinder term might be "not a Bible scholar". Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've add an 'about' template on each article; of course, another options might indeed be to discuss the 'Hamilton Psalters' collectively, but perhaps that's a discussion for the future. Klbrain (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! There's really no case for a joint article because of past shared ownership in a large collection. A disam page might be an idea. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply