Template talk:Bibleverse

Choice of verse text source

As noted in User_Talk:Neutrality, I would rather another source to Bible Gateway. http://bible.cc/ shows a good parallel comparison of various English editions, but I am as yet unpleased with the lack of Hebrew source.

• Bible Gateway seems to have a ton of different translations, and we should be thinking about providing the most translations for everyone, so that the template can eventually be included in other Wikipedia languages. As for the Hebrew text, we can easily create another template for that, unless you can find one source that provides them all. -- BRIAN0918  04:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For comparison texts, you can create a third template if necessary. -- BRIAN0918  05:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Choice of verse text: http://bible.cc versus Bible Gateway

I disagree that Bible Gateway is a better choice than http://bible.cc. And I see a tab for Hebrew at bible.cc. I chose http://bible.cc because this website shows MULTIPLE Bible translations for a single verse. Moreover, there are several quality, in-depth commentaries of the verse at the bottom of the page, should a reader want the verse explained. http://bible.cc is the better choice for focusing on a SINGLE subject--for example, a name or title of Jesus.

Someone changed all my quality links to a single link source--Bible Gateway. But linking it to Bible Gateway can be very deceptive because only ONE translation of a verse is shown, which might be a poorly translated verse, or a wrongly translated verse, or even a missing verse. For example, some Bibles leave out certain verses (e.g., the Trinity--the Word, Jesus, being God); and many modern versions weaken the divinity of Jesus; and one translation even changed the 10 commandments!

Compare: http://bible.cc/1_john/5-7.htm and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:7&version=NIVUK

Furthermore, Bible Gateway is cumbersome to use (takes too long on my computer), and some commentaries are not theologically correct. These are two reasons why I didn't link to Bible Gateway. Much work is needed at Bible Gateway to glean the same information given on ONE PAGE at http://bible.cc. And the commentaries for a specific verse at http:///bible.cc (at the bottom of the page) seem to have been very carefully chosen for sound doctrine, so the reader is not led astray.

http://bible.cc is great for most Internet surfers, who desire accurate and concise information on a SINGLE BIBLE VERSE quickly, without having to weed out any garbage. For a study on the Names of Jesus, http://bible.cc is ideal.

I feel it should be a policy NOT to change the links of the original author. (A layman changing the links of a scientist's webpage can lead to gross errors.) The links I chose for a Bible verse led to quality Bible verse pages. Now I feel the links are inferior, and rather impotent. Who changed the links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.27 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More extensible alternative

I've created a more extensible alternative to directly using BibleGateway's choice of texts. Of course it requires a script. At the moment, it can be found at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php but this may change. (And at the moment I have only installed BibleGateway's sources.) --jnothman 16:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have decided to go ahead and make the change to my new system... Any objections? I would like another host for the script, though... --jnothman
  • If it can't be completely contained in Wikipedia, I'm not sure people will support it. It would probably be better to make two templates similar to this one for Hebrew and comparison texts. -- BRIAN0918  01:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well the exlusive use of BibleGateway was not exclusively contained in Wikipedia! I am absolutely willing for it to be contained in Wikipedia, but the templates are simply not strong enough. I am also happy to throw a GPL onto the script and for it to be included in Wikipedia, or on their servers. I don't want it maintained on my small plot of university web space! But first it has to be built up a little. The advantage of the template is that we can change where the mechanism is housed and the pages remain the same. --jnothman 02:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's put on the Wikipedia servers, how will people be able to edit it to make these changes. -- BRIAN0918  02:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Which changes? Atm no one can affect how BibleGateway handles things. I think this is a much safer way altogether, even though I wish it didn't rely on my own hosting or managing of it. If Wikimedia wanted to include it as some sort of script or special template, that's fine, but otherwise, there is no way to handle this sort of tool on Wikipedia to my knowledge. --jnothman
        • That's the problem. What if BibleGateway goes away, or they change their URL handling, then the template will be broken. This is why I don't think Wikipedia likes users depending on outside scripts. I suggest using "subst:" like shown below. -- BRIAN0918  03:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Use

Just put this to use in 613 mitzvot, now making a long list of statements a whole lot more useful. --jnothman 02:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest, for the sake of posterity, that you enclose the template in subst: so that the link is actually transferred into the article. So, for example: {{subst:bibleverse|1|Sam|1:1}}-- BRIAN0918  03:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure how this helps. This just means that if the template goes, the link will be preserved to a script that may not remain located there permanently! That's precisely the opposite of what is needed! Furthermore, this dramatically increases the size of a page with 613 such textual references. --jnothman 03:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point.... hehe... -- BRIAN0918  03:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More userfriendly source-keys

A big thanks to jnothman for the great script. Just wondering if you could add more abbreviation source-keys, eg. NASB, NLT - in fact, why not all of them? ··gracefool |☺ 13:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome: I would do this if I knew the standard abbreviations! The abbreviations are stored in http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/biblesrcs.txt . Make sure not to modify the last column, but if you edit this file and can get it back to me somehow, that would be great! --jnothman 05:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've added most of the english abbreviations - get the edited list at User:Gracefool/bibleverse. ··gracefool |☺ 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Updated --jnothman ^talk 11:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

More powerful template? Template variants?

What do other users think of a more powerful template for instance, it would be correct to actually include a link to the Wikipedia article on the given book/s of the bible. For instance, Genesis 1:1 would be better as Genesis 1:1. Does anyone have a nice way of going about this?

template:bibleverse-lb has since provided that feature; using it, your example produces Genesis 1:1. See #New branch below. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A further improvement could be made for contexts on pages where something like "In the book of Genesis (10:15-19, 12:13)" can use a similar template to this one which drops the book name, to result in "In the book of Genesis (10:15-19, 12:13)". Is there any way to do this without creating another template? Should this be done?

--jnothman ^talk 07:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to recommend, but you should also be aware that a number of verses have wikipedia articles just for them, and I think there are a few for specific chapters, as well as the book articles. Wesley 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

having some trouble

Gen 1:1 Isa 42:6 Isaiah 42:6

Yes, it says Isaiah is not there. But it is: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1001.htm The trick is how to get the template to connect to it? help?

Looks like the problem's on their end: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Gen&verse=1:1&src=HE gets Genesis, but: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Isaiah&verse=42:6&src=HE gets "This book (isaiah) not in Mechon Mamre's collection."

But it is! http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1001.htm

This has been fixed, btw. jnothman ^talk 11:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

How this is being used

Could someone please take a look at how this is being used, for example, at The Vicar of Bray (song)? It seems to me that when someone makes a substitution like [1] we lose our internal link to Books of Samuel. Is that really desired? - Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it is important to keep the wikilink:

I [[Books of Samuel|Samuel]] {{bibleverse-nb|1|Samuel|24|9}}

produces:

I Samuel 24

Keeping it in the family

I love the usability of the template, and the fact that it supports versions like the NIV, but there are some sources available in wikisource, for example you can have links like this one (the "text" part primarily):

• 2 Kings 15:29 (text)

Although messy to create, it does leverage wikisource's text. I'm not sure how this concept could best be integrated into the template, but it is something to think about.

AIUI this template (and the other highly-similar one) will shortly be revised to point to the Wikisource (free content, GFDL, sister project) page rather than this external site. Just as with WP:NOT we should not be creating thousands of links that lead away from Wikipedia and the sister projects. --Vamp:Willow 12:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the relevant discussion on this point, other than Talk:Sabbath, which has been in the last few hours. Ansell 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone just arbitrarily eliminates the ability to link to bible verses in a number of useful versions (NIV,NASB,Greek,Hebrew,RSV), you're just gonna end up with bible quotes spread among all the different articles that use them.209.78.20.136 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

En dashes

The template doesn't work correctly with en dashes. For example, 1 Cor 9:20–23 links only to 1 Cor 9:20. Is there a solution to this? —Wayward ^Talk 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, contacting the programmer at User:Jnothman or from [2]. I'll try fix this. jnothman ^talk 08:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. jnothman ^talk

Wikisource

I am interested in seeing this template migrated towards showing the text on Wikisource. One the great advantages will be that instead providing a verse out of context, the link will be sent to an anchor point at Wikisource allowing the reader to see the surrounding text (See s:Template talk:Section for technical details). There is going to be a great deal work done today (thankfully with the help of bots) at Wikisource to migrate the King James version of the Bible to new page names along with the insertion of the anchors with the above mentioned template with goal of having it finished by tonight. At that point it should be possible to demonstrate how this would work.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How long will it take to provide the same number of translations that are currently supported? It seems like a step backwards to go to only one archaic version. Ansell 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a short term alternative could be to get the usyd people supporting the current linkages to reference wikisource when KJV is asked for, but to go out to other possibilities to keep the number of choices open. Ansell 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

KJV alone won't work, you'll need at least the NIV. The NAB would be nice for Catholics. A Greek version would be nice for Orthodoxy and a Hebrew version for Judaism.209.78.19.253 20:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have other translations; some incomplete. The World English and Five Books of Moses are complete. Once we have King James in woking order we will move on to others. I would appreciate if you could give me an idea which versions are most useful so we may set our priorities towards them. We also have many non Bible religious texts. s:Wikisource:Religious texts--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say the complete NIV is a minimum requirement. It's a modern translation and is recognized by the majority of English speaking Christians today. That's not to say the NIV is perfect however, that's where the other versions are needed, such as NAB, Greek, Hebrew. Most other translations are rehashes of the KJV and not particularly useful because the KJV is Elizabethan English and is not based on a modern reconstruction of the Greek text (Novum Testamentum Graece).209.78.19.253 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NASB is also a useful modern translation.209.78.19.253 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the "usyd people" and am happy to support those Wikisource forms that are ready, as long as they are complete and consistent (from version) with their use of book titles. jnothman ^talk 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The KJV at Wikisource

The work is done inserting anchors into the King James translation of the Bible at Wikisource. It can best be used at WP with Template:Sourcetext. {{sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|book=John|chapter=3|verse=16}} gives John 3:16. And {{sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|book=Esther|chapter=1|verse=10|range=-18}} gives Esther 1:10-18 which really just goes to the first anchor but the following verses are always availble with this technique. Any feedback would be appreciated.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to have references to KJV using this wikimedia resource, however, is it impractical to have generic references, which are by default going to NIV NKJV through the current scheme, to go to an archaic translation such as the KJV? Ansell 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am uncertain what you are asking here. I suppose it depends on the purpose of the reference. KJV is certainly the most common English translation throughout history. If we need a reference for a literary allusion, I would think it would be the prefered version. If you are dealing with theological questions there may be something to using a different version, but I would think it depends on the particular reference. There is no translation which is authoritative by any nuetral standard so it certainly is open to debate. I do not think we can make a blanket assertion to use any particular translation. I am going to try and get the Jewish Translation anchored next as it seems be very commonly referenced on WP.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

KJV is simply the most referenced because it is 400 odd years old. Newer translations have benefited from a number of ancient manuscripts which were not available when it was compiled. I think it is safe to say that this template is used for theological purposes more often than not, and as such the different versions do count. By using my suggestion below about taking the open source script currently referenced and making it use wikisource as translations become available while not making it the only option, you could benefit both ways. Note discussion on Talk:Sabbath about translations, KJV does not seem to be the accepted standard at the present time. Ansell 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From my cursory look through What links here it seem this template is mostly you to reference etomological or historical statements. Also it most commonly links to the Tanakh version of the Bible. I have been working on migrating the KJV references over to Wikisource and hopefully can move on to the Tanankh soon. As far as the below comments; I am not technically inclined in these matters and am mainly trying to advance collaboration, so I have no comments due to a lack of understanding. How all these templates work is unfortunately over my head. My understanding with the main advantage Template:Sourcetext is that it can be used on any wikisource document with anchors. So that we only have to learn how to use one template to reference the Bible or Shakespeare, once we get the anchors inserted on the WS end that is. That said if you understand a better technical solution, I can only judge so much as if clicking the link takes me to the right place.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

From a technical aspect I dont mind the way that sourcetext works, however, given that the range of versions available is being decreased so much, I am hoping for a compromise. I would integrate the bibref.php file into MediaWiki as an extension, but I dont have time. I see that as a powerful tool, as it is not simply the process of compiling a link using templating syntax, which gets very messy very quickly. The script allows for redirections outside of the wikimedia group, but could easily be changed to work with wikisource as well. It may require an extra parameter specifying wikisource as the source, but that is also open to debate.

If you look at the source for this template you will find it simply takes numbered parameters and links them to a php script which can find them based on what location you want, for instance, the Tanakh version is from a different site to the versions that biblegateway.com supplies, so it gets redirected there. The script that is being used is open source and could be integrated into mediawiki very easily. I see this as a better long term solution to simply relying on the versions which are able to be put in full text on wikisource. Ansell 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I will try and respond, but truly do lack the most basic understanding of these things. I personally prefer templates with plain text parameters over the numbered kind. Although this may not be as elegant to a techinically inclined person is significantly lowers the bar for others and allows more people to comfortably use the template. These are the sorts of templates I am much used to using at Wikisource were there are very few people capable of working with scripts, but I realise Wikipedia is a different culture. I would be more comfortable to see working examples than discussing technical stuff on a theorectical basis.

As far as giving the most options possible on translations. I think that is not of great importance to the reader, (although I think editors need to check the versions to decide how to reference which I will write more of). I would be surprised if readers ever generally checked more than two verisons. Seriously when you are translating such a document, from such ancient languages, there is little hope of a fine degree of accuracy for any translation. Furthermore despite the various differences that have been ennumerated between different sources, the majority of the Bible is translated from the same documents. In many cases, where there is no great differnce between the texts, I feel there is some advantage to using the text that the philosphers and theologists have been referencing themselves for the better part of 400 years. In cases where there are significant differences of historical importance then the differences tehmsemlves should probably be dealt with in the article. I am sure there is are other cases where the differences are great, yet the passage is itself unimportant where we are in a more grey area. But this is all very vague and I do not believe we should make any decision to always prefer one translation over the other. Instead I find it important to examine the actual passage, it's purpose within the article, the differences between various translations for the particular passage, and then make a decision of what is the best reference. If the purpose of the passage is not enhanced by using the historically common KJV (and you must be able to concede it would be in certain cases), then I can agree to your preference to use a version with more modern language. If there is no great differences between the modern translations, I hope you are able to concede it be best to use a free content version. This leaves us to deal with the cases where someone's prefered copyright translation is significantly different than the free content version. I think such cases the differences themselves should probably discussed within the article. If they are not important enough to warrant disscusion, I am not sure they need to be referenced at all. Now this all is very complicated and has no concrete examples. I am content to deal with the simplist decisions right now, which are to to migrate links from external sites to the exact same text at Wikisource. That will be enough work for some time, not to mention the work needed on the Wikisource end. When that task is accomplished the more complicated desions can be hashed out. I have no reasons to insist on using KJV outside on the certain circumstances where historical opinions or usage come into play. I am also unconvinced of any blanket preference for a version for accuracy reasons. I can be convinced of such preferences for certain passages, however. That said I really see no reason to hold off on working on the easier situations, because we are unsure how we will handle the complicated ones. Sorry this has been so long feel free to copy it anywhere more appropriate.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to merge the verse and the range field? It would be much more convenient to just say "verse=10-12" rather than "verse=10,range=-12".

Would it be practical to copy the bibref.php as an extension to the MediaWiki software, since it is released under an informal, but seemingly Open Source licence,

"By Joel Nothman, 2005. jnothman at student dot usyd dot edu dot au Free for distribution and derivation, but if you think it's that good, please cite the author!"

I think that it could easily be transformed into a MediaWiki extension, which could then be configurable to use WikiSource for texts that are available, but keep functionality for those which aren't and would stop the reliance on an outside redirection service. Ansell 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me BirgitteSB is trying to enforce a KJV only policy. 64.169.7.49 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you completely misunderstand me. I am currently working on links to the KJV text, and hope to continue on to the Tanakh shortly. As far as specific intentions that is as much as I have decided. My general intentions are spelled out above, were I clearly state I am against a blanket preference for any translation. I am sure there certain passages in certain articles I will prefer to to see KJV reference. And for other passages in other articles I will prefer that KJV is not used or else mentioned as a historical translation that has been found to be based on problamatic sources. I do not know how to be clearer. The historical importance of KJV merits some consideration, but I do not wish to see it exclusively used and I am certainly not "enforcing" anything. Please explain why you feel that I am. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

merge

I think that Template:Bibleverse should "win" because:

1. it was first (made 29 March 2005 as opposed to 18 February 2006)
2. bibleverse is more widely used (over 200 v. about 50)
3. it has more advanced features. Jon513 21:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this template is the more general template, it can do what Bibleref can do and more. Likely a better solution would be to convert bibleref marks to bibleverse and then put it up for TfD, since it only duplicates a subset of this templates functionality. Ansell 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource stuff

This whole argument is foolish really. Yes, there are many English translations of the Bible. Ideally, Wikisource should (and will) cover all of those that are available under a free licence. It will then be possible to link to verses with multiple translations, rather than chosing a particular one, whether KJV, Wycliffe, or NIV (provided it is PD). As an academic effort, it is more interesting to see the distinctions in translation than to pick one translation as more "accurate." In general, all of the English translations have faults -- and I have a background in biblical Hebrew so I can make that assertion. As for the claim that this will take time, so what? It doesn't have to be today, and we don't have to give ourselves over to external links when we can do something meaningful and valuable right here. See this] as a preliminary example of what is possible. Rather than argue one online translation over another, I invite you all to join the team at Wikisource that is trying to put together the most comprehensive compendium of English translations and their sources. We are just getting started, and we can use your help. Danny 01:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For more information and a sampling, see here. Danny 03:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, while that might be true that wikisource one day will cover all of the translation, at the moment it does not. And as these translation are copyright I don’t' think that this will be happening in the near future. I hope that there can be a way that we can let the user decide. This template cannot do this, but hopefully someday it can. Jon513 19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny, I like that comparative translation approach, but it is not suitable for cases where you want to refer to a passage, rather than a single verse. jnothman ^talk 08:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Judaica Press sources now available

For an alternative Jewish translation to the outdated JPS 1917 edition, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach (as avaialable from Chabad.org) has been made avaialabe, without Rashi commentary (source code JP) or with (code JPR). jnothman ^talk 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

merge from niv

I think that Template:niv should be mostly merged into this template because (a) this template allows the reader to choose a version rather than force one upon them (b) the "default" translation on this template is the niv. Clinkophonist 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Notification about Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible

I stumbled upon an advertisement for this page which an editor had convieniently placed on a user talk page without remembering to put a link to it here. Vote stacking is bad, but this is a relevant discussion to this template, and hence I am doing this here and not on selected talk pages. Ansell 10:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion from over three years old. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing

Looking at, for example, the article Abigail, hoping to understand how to use it, each of these links simply leads to something like "This book/chapter (1_samuel 25) is not in Chabad.org's Judaica Press Complete Tanach." Is the template misused in that article? Or is this, for some reason, an expected result? - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an unexpected result - I haven't had time lately - but a proposal is at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible for making things more consistent. My newest idea is that we should cite to wikisource with 3 side by side version and a list of alternative external websites - but I haven't had time to write it up and explain, much less formulate an idea on how to implement at wikisource. --Trödel 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, again my mistakes and I have been travelling lately so I haven't seen this notice till now. It's fixed.... jnothman ^talk 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template currently broken?

1 Samuel 3:16–4:18

yields:

Server not found, can't find the server at www.joelnothman.combibref.php.

This was a temporary mistake in htaccess files... jnothman ^talk 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New branch

I have just created {{Bibleverse-lb}}, which is just like {{Bibleverse-nb}} except that it provides a link to the Wikipedia page for that book of the Bible. Such a usage was desired by this user, and it is also the way I always try to link verses. The template just makes it a lot less tedious.

It has the following limitations:

• Any "book number" must be entered first, not second.
• Some abbreviations might result in links to pages without redirects to the proper page. For example, {{Bibleverse-lb|1|Sam.|12:3}} until recently would have resulted in a redlink to I Sam., except that I have created a redirect there. Obviously, creating the proper redirect pages would pretty much solve the problem, though redirects are not "ideal."
• Similarly, a good number of links generated by the template will be redirects, because of the quick "rule of thumb" I used in the template to avoid a big switching statement. I am now checking to try and make sure that all such links do in fact lead to their proper page.

--Eliyak T·C 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate text

It would be nice to have an optional fourth parameter, to display alternate text if invoked. I just had a situation where I wanted to link: "...Revelation 12:17; 19:10." With the second entry, I would have liked to have used: {{bibleverse||Revelation|19:10|NIV|19:10}}, where the fourth parameter is the text to appear on the page. -Colin MacLaurin 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See the top of the page for an example of {{bibleverse-nb}} 13:10 which seems to do what you need. Ansell 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Manual fixup request

Helløø! The manual confuses me: the template contains {{{1}}} to {{{3}}} but the uppermost template usage description of this template, also seem to presume {{{4}}}. An' what'te d*rn does SOURCE_CODE refer to!? Rursus 12:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if you look at the code of the template it contains {{{1}}} to {{{4}}}, but the fourth doesn't come into the displayed text, only into the link. Source code referse to which bible translation/source you want to refer to. You may leave it blank to refer to a page listing bible sources, or otherwise see the link above at #List of Source Codes. jnothman ^talk 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... why doesn't 2 Timothy work

2 Timothy 2:7 goes to book 1. --Merzul 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem with http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref not this template :( --Merzul 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Fixed. jnothman ^talk 08:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance sought (& what about Blue Letter Bible)

(I hope I'm in the right place--this isn't about template mechanics, but I sought guidance on WP:STYLE's talkpage, which sent me to WP:BIBLE, which sent me here. Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible seems dead, so...)

I just started editing Quatuor pour la fin du temps, about a famous musical work explicitly based on Revelations 10, & found it had KJV quotes w/ no cites at all, so I went looking for guidance on putting them in...particularly:

• is there a standard style at WP for inline or footnote bible cites?
• is it OK to use standard "shorthand" like Lk for "Gospel according to Luke" or Is for the "Book of the Prophet Isaiah," or should one be more formal/explicit here for the benefit of non-Judeo/Christian readers? Or should wikilinking be enough?
• on a more picayune level, what's the right way to cite a passage that elides some verses, like the quote at the beginning of the Quatuor article, or common liturgical practice? Is "Rev 10:1-2, 5-7(KJV)" good style? Should there be a space after the comma or not? (I styled this based on vague memory of missals). The quote in the article is even stranger in that it elides within verses too; I gave up on acknowledging that in the cite...

The debate here and on the "Citing Sources" page seems to be more on links than on style per se; it seems like even w/o consensus on that a style-standard could be set forth for the MOS &/or WP:CITE.

--

On the linking issue & this template, I was surprised to see no reference to Blue Letter Bible. That's where I went to figure out what version other editors had used w/o citing. After looking at biblegateway, I kinda prefer Blue Letter:

• Like Bible Gateway, Blue Letter leans toward Evangelical Protestentism, & there's some proselytizing on the site, which isn't great from an encyclopedic standpoint.
• OTOH, Blue Letter is totally nonprofit--eg they don't seem to be hocking bibles on the site. It also loads faster, at least for me.
• Bible Gateway does have more English versions; and a whole lot of other modern languages...but for some reason lack either any hebrew or the Vulgate, both of which are on Blue Letter. (Gateway has neither the Vulgate nor any other recognizable Catholic version--St. Joseph, Jerusalem, NAB. hmm...)
• Blue Letter also has bonuses like built-in concordance & commentaries from the likes of Luther & Calvin...

However Gateway does have the Louis Segond French version, which is interesting for the Quatuor article...My solution for now is to link both sites under "External links", and leave the ("Harvard-style") inline cites w/ wikilinks only. Any comments? (apologies for length) —Turangalila ^talk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about citation style for bible, but I have intended for a while to add Blue Letter Bible to the bibref script. I just haven't had the few moments required on my hands. In a few weeks, hopefull, I'll be able to add it and a number of other useful sources (eg. New JPS on the Pentateuch[3] and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon on the Targums[4]). jnothman ^talk 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bible Versions

I hope you are not thinking of "standardizing" all Bible links to only one Bible website. This is a dangerous step to take for successful propaganda to occur. Let each author choose his/her own linked websites, and DON'T change the author's web-links. (By doing so, a QUALITY web-page can change into a POOR web-page, since search engines also look at the quality of links). After spending hours selecting quality web-links, someone CHANGED my links without regard to quality/accuracy. Can we have a "hands-off" policy on changing an author's web-links?

pop-up or drop-down

I like this template, I use it alot. Good work! :)

I want to make one that will give the data in a little pop-up or dropdown thing so if you click it the data will be there immediatly, rather than having to go all the way through the internet to get it.

This would be convenient so you don't have to go to a new page, then perhaps there can be a link in the drop-down in case you did want to go to the page.

Also those with a slow connections would appriciate it.

I've done some javascript and PHP. How do you make templates here? And is there an example for a drop-down or pop-up template? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rush4hire (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

While it might require some changes on my part to the PHP script (allowing XML output for instance, more consistent response to errors), Wikipedia won't easily adding Javascript. You could make a script that individual users could make use of, ie a UserScript. jnothman ^talk 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

off-wiki site linked to

maybe we should link to an on-wiki list of off-wiki bible versions. But if we're going to link to an off-wiki site directly, make that http://unbound.biola.edu/ -- it is far superior to the one linked to at present, which apparently doesn't even have a Latin version. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The unbound bibble seems a good tool, and not one that I had seen before. I realise there are a lot of lackings with the current script, but I haven't had time to improve it, and may well find the time in a bit more than a month from now. In other ways, the unbound bible site is limited: it is Christian only, and unabashedly claims its pursuit of faith rather than scholarship; and it is not compatible with the Wikipedia template as it currently stands. It may be possible, though, to include it in the current script. jnothman ^talk 11:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should 3rd parameter (chapter and verse) be optional for {{bibleverse}} and {{bibleverse-lb}}?

To reference an entire book, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|}} correctly produces 1 Corinthians, but if I omit the 3rd parameter, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians}} produces the invalid 1 Corinthians. If the 4th parameter is optional, shouldn't the 3rd parameter be optional as well?

Similarly, {{bibleverse-lb|1|Corinthians|}} correctly produces 1 Corinthians [5], but if I omit the 3rd parameter, {{bibleverse-lb|1|Corinthians}} produces the invalid 1 Corinthians {{{3}}}.

(This change wouldn't make sense for {{bibleverse-nb}}, which is only useful when the chapter and verse is supplied.)
Wdfarmer (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If we only want to link to the book, that's going to almost always be an internal link, in which case a standard wikilink is a clearer option. And if you want a link to a particular translation or resource, you're better off with that being direct too. jnothman ^talk 13:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first statement, take a look at the context which prompted me to think of this, at Virginity#Christianity, 2nd paragraph. There the reference is "Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians...". I used {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|}} there to provide a link to the external text, rather than the Wikipedia article, since I thought the text would better support the argument being made in the sentence, by providing examples.
Regarding your second statement, it's not clear to me what you mean by "direct". For a particular translation, I'd be inclined to use a {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians||KJV}}, for example, but that currently produces the invalid 1 Corinthians.
Wdfarmer (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to disagree. I don't think it's very good Wikipedia style to link an entire book like that, even in that context. Bibref, which this template uses, is also not really made for references to entire books. Given a reference to an entire book, it will just open up chapter 1. Sorry, I would say change the reference to a wikilink in Virginity#Christianity. jnothman ^talk 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

urm... borkage?

Christian_angelic_hierarchy#Powers

doesn't seem to work for single-verse refferences to BibleGateway

eg:

{{bibleverse||Ephesians|6:12|KJV}}

results in Ephesians 6:12

site says 'Ephesians 6:12' not found for version "King James Version", tho i can manually find it. also, 6:12-6:13 seems to work, just not 6:12-6:12 or 6:12. --Dak (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a problem with BibleGateway.com... You're welcome to let them know! We can't do anything about it. jnothman ^talk 07:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Song of Solomon and spaces

This does not work for Song of Solomon 2:15 only SongofSolomon (ugly) or Songs. Probably not worth adapting the template for spaces but I thought i'd mention it. meltBanana 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

KJV is outdated!

Why is the KJV being linked to? When there are much more accurate translations available! The only reason to use the KJV is tradition, which doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's policies I'd imagine. ShadowFusion (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are other reasons. The KJV is an influential literary classic. Other translations that were arguably literary classics are either even more outdated, or are demonstrably less influential. The other is that there are few translations of the Textus Receptus that are more accurate, and the Textus Receptus is the most important version of the Bible to historians of the Reformation. Rwflammang (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Modification to the template

I propose modifying the template to link to wikipedia in the text and create a footnote that links to a few different versions plus the tool on usyd.edu.au which shows multiple versions. For example:

John|3|16 is one of the most commonly quoted scriptures. One can see it often at sporting events.

When Christ responded to those seeking after a sign he responded in Matthew|16|4 that Jonah was a foreshadowing of his death in the grave and resurrection.

Christ was welcomed into Jerusalem with shouts of Hosanna (see Mark|11|9).

This part of Handel's Messiah comes from Luke|2|14 where angels appear to the shepherds proclaiming peace on earth.

Peer pressure can be countered with the word of God in Acts|5|29 wherein we are reminded to put God first.

Prayer, seeking God's will (James|1|5|), can help us when we need to better understand our life or what direction we should take.

Notes

There is an example of the proposed complete replacement for {{bibleref}}. You can see the code in my user sandbox which will be modified to handle all the cases that are included in {{bibleverse}} before being implemented.

Note that the template links to the article on the specific verse, if it exists, or to the chapter, if the verse doesn't exist and the chapter does, or to the article on the book. If no article exists even on the book it will link in the text to wikisource. However, the footnote links to various online versions of the Bible - including some that provide excellent tools for study. --Trödel 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. When the template was designed, I don't think #ifexist existed, and references were not yet popular. Are there any performance issues related to its usage?

I think your footnote is too long. One source plus the link to the list of sources should be enough. In particular, on pages relevant to Jewish topics, your selections would not be as pertinent as the Hebrew bible text, which is why the SOURCE_CODE field exists in the template. I also hope (RSN) to give the PHP script a workover so that it's more flexible and less overwhelming in what it shows.

jnothman ^talk 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! My intent is that the source code field will still be supported, and I am in favor of including a Jewish source in the footnote - and changes to what is included. I just threw together the example (off {{Bibleref}} actually) pending how the proposal was received before spending time fully implementing it. I'll give it a few more days before doing the code for bibleverse.

One thought I have had is to get rid of redirects Matthew 12 for example which redirects to Gospel of Matthew by editing all pages currently referencing Matthew 12 and having them skip the redirect. That way one would see easily what one is linking to in the inline reference Matthew 12^[n] for example would show that one could link directly to Matthew but not Matthew 12 and include the references.

Also are you the person who created the tool on php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au? If so we should try to get this put on the wikimedia toolserver. --Trödel 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should get it onto the toolserver. Really I've been hoping for too long to make some major changes to the script,, but haven't got around to it. So I've sort of delayed making it available in the appropraite place.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at re the Matthew redirect stuff.

And a Jewish source would be great, except that none exists for books of the New Testament, so then you need to either detect which book is being mentioned (which is why we need an external script), or use a separate template for OT books, which will basically never get used.

jnothman ^talk 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With the more powerful parser functions now available we should be able to test out for OT vs NT vs Apocrypha etc and be able to not include a Jewish source in the footnote for NT references. Perhaps we should write a little pseudocode on how this and other issues should be handled on a subpage, Template talk:Bibleverse/newcode, for example. --Trödel 01:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The parser functions may be useful, but really, they still fail to cover cases like ours where there are many alternative names for one thing. Indeed, what they're missing in the parser functions are string operations (anything O(N^2) has been refused), regular expressions, etc. There are just too many ways to refer to a book to put it all in an enormous switch statement. Atm, I think your basic solution as currently implemented is good, except for the moment we might give only the one link in the footnote until we can sort it out. But maybe we still need to consider the performance and usability implications: e.g. is it a problem that some pages, such as 613 Mitzvot will increase in length by ~650 references? jnothman ^talk 05:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the decision not to include string functions makes things difficult. That is why I think the solution you created to mix template logic with an external tool is the best approach.

Wow! - I've not reviewed that article - that is something to consider. Since {{bibleref}} is used only on 372 articles - I think I'll do that one first - and review the impact it will have on the articles that it is used in. We should also have a decent error message to use when the template is used incorrectly. --Trödel 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PHP script moving

I have to move the PHP script dependency from its current location at http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php. It will now be available at http://bibref.hebtools.com/. I will try to avoid removing the old location for a few weeks. jnothman ^talk 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: The new server is slower than the previous, and ideally, we should hope to acquire space on a Wikimedia toolserver, etc., as requested here. Assistance in moving the script to Wikimedia servers would be appreciated.

Toolserver hosting has been approved! Let me know if you need any help with the toolserver. And it would be nice if Wikisource was used where possible; BirgitteSB and I can help with that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest layout improvement

{{editprotected}} When using the book-number part of the template thus: {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|13:1}} the number (1) and the book (Corinthians) can become separated from each other if the expansion happens near the end of a line, causing line-wrap, resulting in something like:

... as mentioned by St. Paul in 1

Corinthians 13 which ...

I suggest that the "{{{1}}} {{{2}}}" part of the template be re-coded to use a non-breaking space, so the above example would display in the better form:

... as mentioned by St. Paul in

1 Corinthians 13 which ...

The remaining separator (at "{{{2}}} {{{3}}}") should probably continue to be an ordinary, breakable, space, because both '2' and '3' could be substantial items. (A pity that HTML doesn't have variable-value TeX-like 'glue'...) Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm just experimenting with it though, because we want to avoid an extra space if the first parameter is unspecified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Yes the space was an issue, but I've sorted it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's looking good in my browser on the sample page where I had seen it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Website

It appears this template points to a specific website. What if any relationship exists between Wikipedia and that website? If we don't have a specific relationship, then why are we focusing on one website instead of allowing other sites to host the requested verses? For example there is a site crosswalk that I've used in the past. That's just an example, I don't really care if we use them or not. I'm curious why we are focusing on one site to the exclusion of any others.Wjhonson (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New International Version misspelled in documentation

The term "New International Version" is misspelled in the template documentation as "New Interational Version". Could somebody fix it, please? Thanks.... 99.19.104.61 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)