WikiChristian talk:Bible

This page is to discuss how the Bible could best be referenced in WikiChristian and any changes that we should undertake. Please see Bible Changes for the current system that is being implemented.

Some of the pros of the current system that I can see are:

• A verse can be easily displayed on any page simply by typing something like this: {{web_verse|john|1|1}} which will display Template:John 1:1 (WEB) ; different versions and languages can be displayed too, for example {{greek_verse|john|1|1}} will display this: Template:John 1:1 (Greek)

• By editing the verse directly (for example adding links to the verse) the edit will apply on whatever page the verse is displayed
• There can be a main page for each verse or chapter for which a commentary can be written (for example John 1:1)
• There can be individual pages for different versions / translations of the verse or chapter which can contain footnotes about that version (for example John 1:1 (Greek) can have footnotes that show any textual variants for the Greek text - if there happen to be any)

Anyway, these are just some of the positives. I look forward to hearing what other people think and to hearing the cons. --Graham grove 13:53, 22 July 2008 (PDT)

Aquatiki here.

• What versions are important to have here? What versions are affordable/legal? The Greek, Hebrew, Latin, KJV, ASV, YLT and WEB are all free. Do we want all of those?
• There no argument for and many against having tons and tons of pages. Having a page for every version of every verse/chapter/book is unavoidable, but there only need to be a handful of templates to handle all the things we want done.
• Most people know nothing about Greek/Hebrew/Latin, nor do they want to! I am for the sequestering of other forms of verses.
• All these versions can be nicely tucked away in to Namespaces (read this Wikipedia explanation).

--Aquatiki 10:16, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Graham again.

• I think we should start with free versions and at a bare minimum have the WEB version and the Greek and Hebrew. But ultimately the more versions the better. But let's start with one English translation and the original language versions. How does that sound?
• I'm very happy with tucking away pages the way as you have suggested. Will we still be able to easily show the text from any page using something similar to {{web_verse|john|1|1}} and will we still be able to keep the little "edit" link so that the Bible text itself can be edited to add links?
• And if we do it this way then where can we still put footnotes specific to particular versions, for example, a footnote showing the Greek manuscript variants for the Greek version?

--Graham grove 10:37, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Aquatiki's counter-riposte

• I agree with your first point 100%.
• Quoting will be as easy as you imagine. Linking to "edit" is easy too.
• New point: Isn't adding links to bible words an pretty big judgment call? Are we not adding a layer of interpretation to the bible? On my wiki I decided against doing that at all, but perhaps we could bracket it some way here, if you're keen on it. Otherwise, can we really call it the KJV or WEB? (I know we do it with the Greek/Hebrew/Latin, but I don't think you're proposing to only link to a dictionary-like page for English words).
• Would the footnotes need to be displayed every time the text is quoted, or only seen on the original page, or be electable? All are possible.

--Aquatiki 10:44, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Graham yet again

• I'd be interested to hear a little further about your thinking for linking in the Bible. I'm suggesting for example, if the word "Abraham" appears in the text, that it links to Abraham; "Baal" would link to Baal; "Israel" might link to Ancient Israel and Judah if it was appropriate to the context and so on. --Graham grove 10:51, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
• Not sure about where the footnote would be seen. Perhaps only on the original page. What do you think? --Graham grove 10:53, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Aq

• I don't disagree that sometimes it's plain as day, but just to take you last one as an example: Dispensationalism says that Ancient Israel is Modern Israel: you're deciding they are not by having two pages and linking to one over the other. Or, somewhere you and I might disagree, what is "the world" in John 3:16? The planet? The people? Which people? The elect? Who gets to decide which link is appropriate when there isn't just one page to which one can link?
• Footnotes about textual variations are so erudite and esoteric, that I can't imagine any but the most lofty of scholars wanting to input that resolution of detail into a wiki. Since, however, Unbound's free texts provide it, it would seem best in by judgment to include it on the Greek page and nowhere else. --Aquatiki 11:01, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Graham

• Fair enough - I'm happy to cut out the idea of putting links in the English text. I guess the commentary section is meant for the explaining of terms anyway. I still think it is important to put the links in the original language however.
• I agree about leaving textual variations in the Greek page.

It seems to me that we're coming to some good conclusions here. I don't imagine that many other people are going to make comments, but you never know.

I think the next step is to work out what a standard page verse, chapter and book page would look like. --Graham grove 11:10, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

I will make a working model for you once I am able to create a namespace or two. --Aquatiki 11:17, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

P.S. I think it's good that we document this conversation as there may be technical people who come along at a later date.

Brilliant. Sounds good. Agreed about the documentation. Thanks Robert. --Graham grove 11:32, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

By the way, could we keep it as much is possible in line with style outlined in Wikichristian.org:Page Layout. Perhaps some sort of cross between what you've created in ReformedWord and the style of, for example, John 11:25 or John 11:35. --Graham grove 11:35, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Another question - probably a silly one, but I just want to be sure. I like being able to type the verse into the search section, e.g. I like being able to type "John 1:1" into the search box on the left hand side of the wiki and have John 1:1 loaded up. That would still occur with the new system we're thinking of implementing wouldn't it? --Graham grove 15:05, 23 July 2008 (PDT)

Have you read MediaWiki talk:Sidebar? Ryan has suggested that we might want to have random:verse and random:article. I thought we could segregate all the Bible stuff to separate namespaces (WEB:John/1/1,KJV:John/1/1,Greek:John/1/1, etc) and even have Bible verse pages themselves be Bible:John 1:1. The solution I just found to your hope was here: Special:Random does not ever point to redirects, special:Randomredirect does. Soooo, if you had all the verses (i.e. John 1:1) be redirects to Bible:John 1:1, then you could still type into the search box John 1:1 and end up at Bible:John 1:1 and Special:Random|Random article and Special:Random/Bible|Random verse could still work. Does that make sense? --Aquatiki 16:36, 23 July 2008 (PDT)