On a side note: I think a lot of the book descriptions could be expanded and revised. Some are quite misleading. Also, I dislike this, Mann:

Also, I think you misunderstand the description of deWolde. It says that it only has one entry. Not that it can only have one entry.

And when another entry is eventually written…then it should read "Only two items." And so forth.

I'd prefer these set up to where no one has to constantly manipulate any of the descriptions to make them match properly.

Although I still maintain, as I did on chat, that it feeks silly to me to feel the need to get my consent before making an administrative edit.

An assembled collection on non-corporeal or obscure entities, their properties, and their relationships with various worlds. The volumes constituting it have been contributed to heavily and irregularly since its first publication in 1038 CE, being updated whenever new information becomes relevant. Sources have varied greatly, causing some degree of contradiction: writers have included members of the Catholic and Anglican Churches at alternate stages in their history, early cultists, unaffiliated university scholars, otherworldly immigrants, hermits, and several of the entities of the subject matter themselves.

Most volumes have been heavily annotated and edited by other authors working after the initial publication. Certain Hand members have produced, appended, updated and acted as editors for several of the texts.

I propose this version, which is Bunton's with two small changes. I replaced "volumes" at the end to reduce repetitiveness of the last paragraph. Additionally, I included an Oxford Comma to make the list at the end of the first paragraph more easily readable.

As for deWolde, I thought it was like the Book of Ur insofar as "only x sections have been discovered" where "x" = number of entries written.

@Jack I think that it's for the "Victorians messing where they shouldn't have messed" genre of story.

excarberated by the fact that the Library page's source is now a series of complex div blocks

By moving those long style attributes and extensive in-line formatting into CSS, we could greatly simplify the code without changing the appearance of the page at all. As a bonus, it would make future style changes easier since there would be only one copy of the format code, rather than each book repeating it.

Now that I've learned how to use the wikidot CSS module, I would volunteer to do this if people would find it useful.

EDIT: Also, I'm not bothered so much by the "only one entry" description of deWolde. I'm more confused about what else would go in there because the description doesn't elaborate on the content of the collection.

This is only excarberated by the fact that the Library page's source is now a series of complex div blocks, and entries are no longer added directly to the page (although sorry, because that was kind of my fault). It also seems a bit extraneous to state the number if entries in the Book for no specific reason.

As for Lady Margo deWolde, I would say axe it and move the one piece there to the Codex.

Also, I think you misunderstand the description of deWolde. It says that it only has one entry. Not that it can only have one entry.

And when another entry is eventually written (I've no plans myself, but I encourage anyone else to consider one), then it should read "Only two items." And so forth.

Revised description is here. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Oh, and while I'm here: can I get a general opinion on the aspect of the Files of Lady Margo deWolde which explicitly states it can only have one entry in it?