Jump to content

Template talk:Bibleverse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

How to change back to original links?

How does one change the Bible links back to the original author's Bible links? Someone changed most of the author's original links to Bible Gateway. But Bible Gateway is inferior for studying a Name/Title of Jesus. It is time-consuming to obtain comprehensive information for a single verse at BibleGateway. But at www.bible.cc, a single verse is nicely summarized, with comprehensive information for further study. Also, the single Bible verse shown at www.biblegateway.com can be misleading and inaccurate. (For example, the Catholic Bible changed the verse about the Trinity, and leaves out the 2nd commandment on not worshipping Idols/GravenImages.) (Note that Emperor Constantine was not a true convert, and still worshipped statues--the statue of Queen Isis became Queen Mary; the statue of Apollo became St. Peter, both of which are graven images/idols, and both are still revered in the Catholic Church.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.140.42 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 Genesis. 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):

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)
I think context is good; just want to post an example of how horribly wrong stuff can get interpreted if taken out of context. Ezekiel 23:20; KJV, without context: [3] 207.65.109.10 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2011 (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[4] and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon on the Targums[5]). 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.23 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
Has this idea been abandoned? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (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 [6], 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)
The King James Version has withstood the test of time for doctrine. Modern versions can be "politically correct" so as not to offend anyone, but such compromises lead to inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (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)

Done. Thanks for spotting it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have no business linking to external sites hosting copyrighted translations of the Bible. The link should point to wikisource by default, preferably to the original text, or failing that to a public domain English translation such as the KJV.

If a point needs to be made how the wording of modern translations deviates from KJV, these texts need to be identified and quoted explicitly in any case. Linking to the NIV text directly, a commercial product owned by Zondervan, is US bias, and probably Evangelical bias. If the text of the NIV is relevant, quote it in the article, but don't tacitly link to NIV text off-site. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed although we should provide easy links to alternate translations available on wikisource. --Trödel 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweak for print

{{edit protected}}

Could someone replace 

[http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book={{{1|}}}%20{{{2}}}&verse={{{3}}}&src={{{4|!}}} {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}&nbsp;}}{{{2}}} {{{3}}}]<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

with 

{{hide in print
 |[http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book{{=}}{{{1|}}}%20{{{2}}}&verse{{=}}{{{3}}}&src{{=}}{{{4|!}}} {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}} }}{{{2}}} {{{3}}}]
}}{{only in print
 |{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}&nbsp;}}{{{2}}} {{{3}}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

This will cleanup the appearance of books and PDFs. Online content will be unaffected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

per my suggestion above, I think the hebtools.com should be taken out of this template altogether. Why is there an entire Category:Bible link templates? We need a centralized approach to how Bible verses are cited. There is a detailed discussion on this at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible, but this seems to have died off. We should make another effort in cleaning this up, but see here. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Bible, I think we should deprecate this template in favour of Template:Biblesource , and perhaps send in the bots to replace all use of this template. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Well be that as it may, it the meantime could we still make that replacement? I'm going through the bible templates and started cleaning them up one by one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this template only used "inline" ? Cause I do not feel comfortable removing urls from references because they are in print. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
They are both used inline and as <ref>citations</ref>. However the URL is pretty useless offline (IMO), and if not useless it is at least of very low-value, as there are hundreds of websites that hosts these translations. What's easier, typing "2 Kings 3:5" in google/other search engine, or typing "http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=2%20Kings&verse=3:5&src=" in the address bar? The only tweak I would possibly make is to include the version if it is specified. AKA 2 Kings 3:5 would display [in print] as "2 Kings 3:5&nbsp(NASB)" or something similar.
Compare this with journal articles, where we kill the links to identifiers.
M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury (2003). "Read before you cite!". arXiv:cond-mat/0212043. {{cite arXiv}}: |class= ignored (help)
will display as
M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury (2003). "Read before you cite!". arΧiv:cond-mat/0212043 [cond-mat].
and not
M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury (2003). "Read before you cite!". arΧiv:cond-mat/0212043 (http://arxiv.org/abs/condmat/0212043) [cond-mat].
Since the work is already unambiguously identified by "arXiv:cond-mat/0212043", there is no need for a link, as googling "arXiv:cond-mat/0212043" [or searching it on the arxiv] brings you to the relevant place. Likewise goggling "2 Kings 3:5" or searching any bible database will bring you to the correct result. Removing them makes both the main text and citation much cleaner. (See User:Headbomb/Bibleref sandbox for demonstration, click "download PDF" in the sidebar.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update:Well as luck would have it, this is already done through Template:Bibleverse/Print, so I guess this is now non-necessary. Making the edit would remove the need for the /Print version however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not update {{Biblesource}} to link to a couple different translations (KJV, AS) - that way the reader can pick the translation they want. I agree that linking to different bible sources directly that aren't on wikisource can be a source of abuse and it is much easier to google the verse --Trödel 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well wouldn't that be a more appropriate discussion at Template talk:Biblesource? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
done --Trödel 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Unification

There are two new very-related threads at the end of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Bible. We're hoping to (1) remove the embedded-external-link styling from all of these templates, (2) merge some of the existing templates (listed there, with # of transclusions), to reduce the sheer number, and (3) where possible, consider how to start replacing any of the other templates (such as this one) with Biblesource. Having more editors who can wrangle template code and understand all the usage permutations, in that discussion, would be especially useful. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that an effort is made towards a more satisfactory solution. Linking to text when citing Bible verses has been a pain for years now (I mostly just don't). The starting point of this discussion should be at wikisource:Talk:Bible, we need to start arranging the texts on wikisource in a way that can be easily linked to. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorting in tables

It would be nice if this template would sort correctly in tables. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see there has been much discussion here on what source to link to. Perhaps a solution could be something like the {{coor}} template that links to a list of sources where the reader can pick whichever source they prefer. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No-Chapter Option

Is there an analog to the template like -nb for no book (Lua error: Bibleverse error: start chapter should be a number.) for when one would like not to show the chapter or the book? This would occur in citations like "Genesis 1:2, 25" for the link to verse 25. If there is no such analog, might someone create it? -- Dauster (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New American Bible change?

Links to the New American Bible (USCCB) seem not to work, for example 1 Maccabees 1:41–50. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be a difficult fix - not only has the domain changed (easy) but the names of the books now use abbreviations, and the jump to links now incorporate the chapter and book as well as the verse - for example the jump to 41 was #41 but now is #20001041 because Maccabees is the 20th book of the Bible, it is the 1st chapter, and the 41st verse. Seems to be consistent #01003009 is Genesis 3:9 and #150002010 is Ezra 2:10 - the problem is that the # links only work if you have the rest of the url correct as to the book and chapter. I couldn't find a way to quick link using the # number - maybe someone else more knowledgeable than me can take a look --Trödel 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
PS the new domain is http://www.usccb.org, and the list of books of the bible is here: http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/. The link for the above verse is now: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1mc/1#20001041 instead of http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1maccabees/1maccabees1.htm#v41 --Trödel 16:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template produces unnecessary spaces at the end

Look at the end of the lede section of Enos (biblical figure) for example. Several spaces precede the period. Does not look good.

46.194.58.112 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2013

I believe just a null edit is needed in order to integrate new Template data as per the suggestion by user Salix alba at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#TemplateData_not_integrating. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if that didn't solve things. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, definitely worked. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Please modify template, so it complies with Wikipedia's MoS

Please change the template so it can accommodate en dashes in accordance with MOS:DASH. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Bibleverse template broken

I'm finding a lot of broken links that use the Bibleverse template. (example: Jesus_and_the_rich_young_man) leads to http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Mark&verse=10:17%E2%80%9331&src=NIV and it is an expired domain. Is it right and proper to replace with niv template? Is there an automated tool for this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver5 (talk • contribs)

The site is down. The site was working a week ago, at least. Maybe we can wait a while? The source code is available at [7] we can ask one of the people with WP:Labs if they would host it. We would have to get our hands on biblebooks.txt [8] and biblesrcs.txt [9]. Obviously you can replace the template with a working one; the only automated tool that might work for this situation, that I can think of is wp:awb.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
My questions are: Who created this tool? Who has been responsible for hosting it? To whom can we turn to fix this mess? I'm not savvy with the behind-the-scene workings of Wikipedia. Help desk? Forum? Notice board? Which one. I'm sure if we turn to an admin, this can be fixed 1,2,3. But which admin? If anyone knows, please forward this information immediately. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC) --@Efrat (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The name and contact info is available along with the the source code at [10]. I'd rather not repeat his name and email here, for privacy reasons. It was not hosted by Wikimedia. As I said, maybe the guys at WP:Labs can host the tool; they'd need the biblesrcs.txt biblebooks.txt if anyone has them. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I see that the files are here as well with the text files: [11], although there are some slight differences I notice (not sure if any are significant). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Update

As you may be able to see, the site hosting the tool for this template has been down for a while now.

I've transferred the code to Wikimedia Tool Labs at [12]. It works in the sandbox version I've just developed: [13]. So the edit request is that we replace the current wikitext with that. A similar change will have to be done for all the other related templates. Would it possible I could get template editor permission and I could do it myself? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't get the tool to go directly to a particular version, only the list of versions page. There is also a mispelled error message when I entered a non-existant book name. The templates Template:Bibleverse-nb, Template:Bibleverse-lb, and Template:Bibleref also need to be updated when the tool is fixed.
Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Telpardec: I'm sorry, where did you try to use it? So when you click here on this link what do you get John 1:1 ?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That spelling mistake is fixed now; REFERNCE -> REFERENCE. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Atethnekos: OK. My bad, I was direct typing in the address bar "version=" instead of "src=" for version. Everything is working fine now, so I have re-activated the edit protected template. I'll leave the rest to you.
Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks for looking at it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Wait. What's working now?
John 1:1 Joel 4:2 1 Maccabees 2:1–5 { { Bibleverse|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } } is not working.
John 1:1 Joel 4:2 1 Maccabees 2:1–5 { { Bibleverse/sandbox|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } } is working.
Please pardon my naivete. (Actually, please pardon my ignorance - I do not understand all the technical stuff.) Are you still in the middle of fixing the problem? Do I go around adding /sandbox to all the Bibleverse links in Wikipedia articles or do I wait patiently? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the sandbox version I made is working. I don't have permission to update the template itself—that's what the protected edit request is for. I guess just wait for an admin or templateeditor to update it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast!

Thanks to Atethnekos for transferring the code to Wikimedia Tool Labs.
Thanks to Little Mountain 5 for editting the templates so quickly. --@Efrat (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

One more detail. (Pardon me for being a bit hysterical). In the section "List of sources", the defunct "link to the list of sources and codes" still appears. --@Efrat (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --@Efrat (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Template protected edit request

Request just to shorten the URL for simplicity's sake:

So use the source code in the sandbox: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Bibleverse/sandbox&action=edit

It's just removing the "bibleversefinder.php" from the URL

Same change would have to be done for template:bibleverse-nb (I didn't make a sandbox version for that). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, along with Bibleverse-nb. LittleMountain5 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

dashes and hyphens

Re this edit to the MOS: does this template fail if dashes are used instead of hyphens? Can it be updated to handle dashes correctly? Thanks, -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The template needs to be changed so that the output contains endashes rather than hyphens. It looks as though as the simple addition of {{Replace|OUTPUT|-|–}} would fix the problem. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: First, the problem was with dashes not working. I tried your idea in the sandbox, changing dashes to hyphens, which worked, but it displayed as hyphens also. MOS-finicky editors like to see dashes in numerical ranges. See next message for an alternate solution. I'll keep that {{replace}} idea in mind for future possibilities.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Little Mountain 5: I found a solution to the dashes-don't-work problem. I made a sandbox template version (612320962) with urlencode added to each verse= parameter. I also added some samples with verse ranges to the testcases page and they all work with encoded dashes instead of hyphens. I did not add PATH at the end of mine like the first urlencode in the template, (I don't know what that does.) If this solution did not mess anything else up, it can be transferred from sandbox to template.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anyone? I don't have edit access to update the template with the corrected version in the sandbox. see above.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  08:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I've added some testcases and it doesn't work properly for all hyphens and dashes... Links fail. Please try to work up a fix in the sandbox and I'll apply. (Note that the live version also fails for those hyphens and dashes, but if the revision isn't going to fix the problem it is intended to fix, then it is not worth doing. ;)) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been a misunderstanding. We were not having a problem with people trying to make the template work with an m-dash or non-breaking hyphen. It works with the ordinary keyboard hyphen just fine. According to MOS:ENDASH, we are supposed to use the endash between numbers in numerical ranges, rather than the hyphen, so some people were changing the working hyphens in the template to endashes, and that was causing the template to fail in some cases. To make matters worse, the fixed-width font in the edit window makes the hyphen and endash look the same width, 6 pixels each. I spent days trying to figure out why certain template examples were not working before discovering that what looked like a hyphen was actually an endash. Before now, there was no fix for the problem except to require people to use only hyphens in this template. So much for the history. —Telpardec  TALK 

The solution to the above problem was to add urlencode to each verse= parameter. See new Bibleverse/testcases page for this template, and Bibleverse-nb/testcases for the {{Bibleverse-nb}} template. Please transfer sandbox template version (612320962) to the {{Bibleverse}} template instead of the current version, and transfer sandbox template version (613558148) to the {{Bibleverse-nb}} template instead of its current version. The "doc" pages are not protected, so I can update them as necessary.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: As I said in the edit summary for reverting your change to the testcases page. You have no idea what people are going to try and enter for a dash or a hyphen, just because you use the right one, doesn't mean that Example is going to. Example might have a non-standard keyboard or a macro where the "normal" - is an &mdash; (—) for example. This might be set up via a keyboard macro because they do a lot of editing fixing specific date styles or something and they don't even think about it. In those cases, the links wouldn't work as intended, and the template should account for that. I'm currently working on another project, but if you can't figure this out in the next few days, I'll see what I can hack up in the sandbox to make this work as you are hoping it will. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Show me a DIFF where someone mistakenly entered an emdash. We don't need to fix phantom problems.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  00:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New Jerusalem Bible

New Jerusalem Bible is here [14]. Info here. Please include it. trespassers william (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Broken for some versions

I'm currently finding that |3=HE, the Hebrew-English version using JPS 1917 at Mechon Mamre, works. But |3=JP and |3=JPR, which use the Judaica Press 1964 translation at chabad.org, do not work. Does anyone know what to do about that? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken again ?

Tuesday, October 21: The template is not working. Temporary problem or does it need fixing again? Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF Tool Labs bibleversefinder tool has been down about a month, so the template doesn't work. A message has been left for the editor who manages the tool. —Telpardec  TALK  11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Still down. This may need to be changed to another tool or another volunteer may need to pick up maintaining the tool. --74.77.200.185 (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we give a deadline to wmf tools labs? Failing this, could a WikiBot be made which would run through WikiPedia and change all wmf links to a better site which is credible and reliable? --Observer6 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Observer6: Atethnekos was a volunteer. We cannot make demands of volunteers, nor make ultimatums or set deadlines.

Dear all:
The bibleversefinder tool is still, or again, down. It was successfully migrated from pmtpa (the Tampa server cluster) to eqiad (the Equinix Ashburn server cluster) in March 2014.[15] So the "No webservice" error message which the tool is currently returning probably indicates that the web service crashed again. The last time this happened, in July 2014, Atethnekos wrote:[16] "The web service crashed. I'm thinking the access log became too large." It looks from User:Telpardec's later comment[17] like Atethnekos then did something to get the service running again. Maybe it crashed again now for the same reason.
As of today, Atethnekos has not responded to any talk page messages left for him/her since late July 2014.[18] And so, two things.
1. I wonder if someone could please volunteer to email him/her, thank him/her for his/her service, ask two things (if s/he plans to be back anytime soon and if s/he could please pass on tool adminship to someone else), and report back to us here?
2. Meanwhile, at the same time, could someone please contact Wikitech-l and ask this?: "If we find a volunteer to take over the tools, can they please usurp tool maintainership?"
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment. In the meantime maybe some appropriate Bible reference sites could be suggested? I have used www.biblegateway.com and www.biblehub.com, but these may not be entirely suitable for WikiPedia editors. --Observer6 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, and stating the obvious, but how about wikisource? s:Bible lists 5 complete versions & 8 partial. Bazj (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, but I would guess (without looking) that the wikisource versions are older versions not in use by many denominations anymore. --Trödel 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thought we were supporting bible quotes in the wiki, not providing a worship resource, or a denomination-approved fact-checker for Sunday morning's iPhone equipped congregation. Lack of denomination approval or endorsement shouldn't be a reason for exclusion from the wiki. If, for example, you wanted to cite a bible verse used by John Donne to inspire a phrase in the Holy Sonnets in the 1610s you certainly would NOT want a modern version. Bazj (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
In which case, I would think you would link to the wikisource (Matthew 2:18 (Tyndale)) version directly. Why take this kind of adversarial tone with someone that tried to help you? There are plenty of reasons that the bibleverse tool exists - including access to particular versions that are appropriate based on the article being used (similar to your example); being able to link directly to the verses needed (which isn't available on wikisource); most of the wikisource bibles are incomplete (so links would jump to nowhere if the tool automatically linked to the book/chapter/verse); etc. I sincerely doubt "Sunday morning's iPhone equipped congregation" is using wikipedia as their bible lookup/linking tool. --Trödel 18:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as adversarial. The question I saw was "maybe some appropriate Bible reference sites could be suggested", so I suggested. I saw virtue in using what's available on the wikis rather than going off-wiki. I stand corrected. Sorry. Bazj (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to if I was being oversensitive - #becausejob :). I agree that it would be better to use what's on-wiki - the KJV s:Bible (King James) is complete and I have linked to it before when I was active on religious pages. --Trödel 20:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox version removes empty parameter

I created a sandbox version of the template here that can handle spaces in the book name, so the strange (usually empty) "Book#" parameter isn't necessary anymore. For example,

  • {{bibleverse|John|3:16}} works instead of
  • {{bibleverse|John|3:16}}, and
  • {{bibleverse|1 John|3:16}} works instead of
  • {{bibleverse|1|John|3:16}}

Take a look at the test cases. It's backwards compatible, so it won't break anything. If no one objects, I'll implement it in a day or two. Cheers, LittleMountain5 05:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait! Will the change work for books that never fill the |BOOK#| parameter. Compare:
{{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1-10|NIV}} (with empty |BOOK#| parameter) Genesis 1:1–10 WORKS
{{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1-10|NIV}} (without empty |BOOK#| parameter) Genesis 1:1–10 DOES NOT WORK
After the change, will both work? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both will work:
LittleMountain5 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice! --@Efrat (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no objections,  Implemented. The "Book#" parameter is no longer required. LittleMountain5 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice job! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I updated bibleverse-nb and redirected bibleref as well. LittleMountain5 23:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


@Little Mountain 5: The doc page here describes bibleverse-nb as an alternative to bibleverse that doesn't display the name of the book.* So far, so good; but then the examples show a double pipe "||" without explaining it at all. I found this quite confusing and had to go to the actual documentation page for bibleverse-nb to figure out what the empty parameter is for. Can you please explain that on the doc page along with the non-para||el examples, or make them parallel?

* OWTTE; I am writing this on my smartphone (not very smart of me, I guess) and can't easily switch back and forth to get exact quotes. --Thnidu (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken

Broken at Census. Syced (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't work with empty "source" parameter

I don't know if this is related to the problems mentioned above, but I'm finding this template doesn't work if the "source" parameter is left blank (for example, {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1}} takes me to a page full of code). The documentation describes this parameter as optional, so I assume the template didn't always behave like this. Anyone know how to fix this? DoctorKubla (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance Requests

Is someone maintaining the version at wmlabs right now? If so, how do I find that person? I would make the following points:

  • The Chabad.org-sourced translations (JP and JPR) are broken
  • The bible.ort.org sources work correctly
  • The mechon-mamre.org sources work correctly
    • I would like the following source to be added: Mechon Mamre's French-English (f/ft/ft). I would like to import this template into French Wikipedia (where the current version is an old one that's broken), and that source would be appropriate there.

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing at the Village Pump; it looks like chabad.org reorganized, and it no longer offers such a convenient API for searching its translation. For now, I think I'll just link in Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork to the chapter pages as they currently exist, without using the tool. Julyo (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Try the below email addr, or just open a phabricator ticket. The documentation here offers an external link in §2. Once there the source code section of that page says

<?php /* Bible Verse Finder (bibref) Version 0.930

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! */

Somebody with wmflabs will be needed to take up the maintainer role, keep the links updated. Or somebody could just write a real template instead of having this wrapper and depending on wmflabs for such a highly used template. — Cpiral§Cpiral
Without a source, the page linked to by this template consists of garbage that looks like PHP source code. For example {{bibleverse|Exodus|20:13}} produces Exodus 20:13. This means that, as of now, the source parameter is effectively not optional. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Atethnekos, the maintainer of the external tool this template relies on, is no longer active. His/her last edit was two years ago. I am going to edit the template documentation to say the source parameter is not optional. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stopgap fix for omitted version

I see that the tool used by this template is not being updated, but I would like to at least propose a solution to the problem where the template doesn't work with the source parameter omitted. The template could be changed to default to the NRSV, the version most widely used by biblical scholars, if the source parameter is omitted. If there are no objections I will make an edit request. --JFH (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the sandbox with the proposed code. The issue is that the template uses a tool which is supposed to give a list of links to various translation if the source parameter is left empty. The tool is broken, and when the source parameter is empty the tool results in garbage (see the testcase). The proposed code fixes this by giving "NRSV" to the tool as the source when the source parameter is blank. I'm not sure if this is an uncontroversial edit, but I'm going to go ahead and make the request given that there has been no opposition and the edit is surely an improvement over returning garbage in many uses. JFH (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No objections in a few days, and alternative approaches are problematic. First, replacing "!" with "!all" in the query has the same broken result for Genesis. Second, NRSV contains deuterocanonical books not found in versions such as KJV, so defaulting NRSV may avoid broken links. So this seems to be the right way to go.
Question: Should the remaining src={{{4|!}}} parameters also be replaced with src={{{4|NRSV}}}? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Reiterating my standing objection to sending traffic off wikipedia when Wikisource has several complete bibles. s:Bible (King James)/Matthew#22:21 -- Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Matt Fitzpatrick: I think the sandbox version does change the code in both places.
@Cabayi: First, using a modern translation outweighs the on-wiki concern. But even if you disagree, rejigging this template to allow reference to ws is impractical. The tool allows a wide variety of reference styles which have been implemented across WP. Either the tool needs to be changed to point to Wikisource for the KJV, the template needs to be completely overhauled to not use the tool while not breaking with all the reference styles, or someone needs to make all the uses of the template uniform and overhaul the template. --JFH (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
A first step would be to use the wikisource copy of the translation where one exists. Atethnekos is listed as the tool's maintainer, perhaps Atethnekos can advise? Cabayi (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained that he's been inactive for two years and people have tried to raise him to no avail (see discussions above). --JFH (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Done & apologies if my questions derailed this for a few days. Cabayi (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cabayi: I meant to respond to this slightly earlier, and I'm glad this is done for now. That said: Using a Wikisource copy is fine where one is fully and readily available to use. For Judaism topics, though, we would be very reluctant to use a version that is substantially Christian in nature like NRSV. For open-source needs, we use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America Version. But while that, too, fully exists on Wikisource, we really prefer to use it side-by-side with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, because in the Jewish world, the Hebrew is always authoritative. That means using Mechon Mamre, which puts JPS 1917 and the Masoretic Text side-by-side. Portions of Mechon Mamre are also available at Wikisource, but not the whole thing. And to start programming the template to go to Wikisource if it exists, but out to Mechon Mamre where Wikisource is incomplete, just starts making life too complicated. So we need Mechon Mamre (version HE here) in this template, and we're going to continue to use it for Judaism-related topics here, in preference to Wikisource, for what I believe are very good reasons. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
PS to all: If anyone takes up this template in detail, I'd like to include Mechon-Mamre's French-Hebrew version in the template as well. That way, I can port the template to French Wikipedia and use it there. If someone can help with that, please contact me at my talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

New American Bible (Catholic) has moved

References to the New American Bible are showing up wrong, because the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has moved their web site. It's currently trying to go to something like http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/james/james5.htm#v14 for James 5:14, but the new address is http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/5 (and I can't find a reliable anchor link for verse 14). nccbuscc.org is obsolete.

I suppose I could open a phabricator account to submit the ticket, but I'm not sure if I want to go to that much trouble just to submit one bug. Or should I? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You should. I'm not sure there's another way to accomplish this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
In the last discussion it was made clear that the code isn't being maintained. It's probably better to replace all uses of NAB as a source. I think there are 35:

Eucharist Hebrew calendar John the Baptist Pope John Paul I Reptile Snake Tishbite Archangel Sexuality in Christian demonology Uriah the Hittite Archippus Summis desiderantes affectibus Bel and the Dragon The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children Early Christianity Watcher (angel) Life Teen Altar stone Letter of Jeremiah Temptation of Christ Eucharist (Catholic Church) Sin of omission Cantwell-Sacred Heart of Mary High School Salvatore Cordileone Our Lady of the Sign Development of the Old Testament canon Junípero Serra High School (Gardena, California) Deicide Origin of the Eucharist Church of the Apostles Eucharist in Lutheranism Women in the Catholic Church History of the Christian Altar Biblical literalist chronology Nightfever

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

The template currently doesn't work for the NAB due to an issue with the labs tool. The tool maintainer is inactive despite repeated attempts to reach him, so I made a new copy of the tool here: http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder2/. I pointed the sandbox version to the new tool and it appears to be working in the testcases.

JFH (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, and I wish you well in taking on the maintenance of the tool. Cabayi (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's really outstanding and generous of you, JFH. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and you're welcome. I can't guarantee I won't lose interest too, so if anyone has/wants to create a tools account and wants to be an additional maintainer to prevent this happening again let me know and I'll add you/walk you through it. It's not terribly difficult. --JFH (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really a programmer. But if it's not a difficult thing to be able to go into the section of the code wherein one adds and subtracts specific Bible translations, I'd be game. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2016

I have an idea for linking to Wikisource's Free Bible. This allows for us to link to passages of the Bible that is located on a Wikimedia project instead of linking to another site.

Here is what the current code should be replaced with to do this: 

[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{1}}}#{{{2}}}%3A{{{3}}}|{{{1}}}#{{{2}}}}}|{{{1}}}}} {{#if:{{{display|}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{1}}} {{{2}}}:{{{3}}}|{{{1}}} {{{2}}}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|{{{display|}}}}}]<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

As I said earlier, this links to Wikisource's Free Bible, and has 3 parameters: 1, 2, 3, and display. Parameter 1 is used for the book that a user wants to link to; parameter 2 is used for the chapter of the book that a user wants to link to; parameter 3 is used for the verse of the chapter of the book that a user wants to link to; and parameter display is for alternative text to be displayed as the link's text.

I have personally tested this code to make sure it works, so hopefully there are no bugs in it that would cause a further need to request another edit. If someone would make this edit for us, I will update the documentation appropriately. AChildOfGod (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: While I agree with your ambition, that translation comes with the big caveat:
This translation of a non-English source text is incomplete.
Also, this template is used in several places to point to discrepancies between translations. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am going to add that I do not fully agree with your ambition. When I am writing (or editing) pages on Jewish topics, I am frankly not interested in using Wikisource unless it is going to pull a Jewish-origin translation, which in all likelihood means JPS 1917. In addition, most of the time, I'd like to pull up a Hebrew text (MT) alongside the translation. Right now, your link only takes me to the home page of the Wikisource Free Bible, and forces several clicks in order to get to JPS 1917. Moreover, the bilingual version (Mechon-Mamre) is not complete on Wikisource, and the portions that have been done do not include vowel points. Given that point of view:
  • I could possibly support the Wikisource Free Bible to be the default Bible for the template, provided that access to all others remains just as easy as it is now.
  • I cannot support making the Wikisource Free Bible the only Bible available through the template.
  • It is arguable that forcing everyone to use the same translation violates NPOV.
StevenJ81 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens? En dashes?

In the "Detail" part of the "Usage" section, the documentation says Use a hyphen, not a dash, to separate ranges. The dash does not work in all operating system and browser combinations. Yet in the "Alternative version" and "Examples" sections, the sample code and the output use en dashes, not hyphens. Could someone who understands the template please correct this? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the history behind this instruction, but I can't imagine why the browser and operating system would effect the tool behind the template. So I deleted it. --JFH (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

incorporate a link to a wiki article in addition to the link to a source

I discovered the template in the introduction of this page, where the titles are displayed twice, like “Matthew Matthew 21:33–46”, so that the first mention of the title links to the wiki article and the rest points to a source for the verses. This is suboptimal for both editors (more boilerplate to write) and readers. --Anareth (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Replacing the tool with a Lua module

I have written a module in Lua to perform the function currently being handled by the Bibleversefinder tool and implemented it in the sandbox. There are several advantages to this module over the tool:

  1. It allows linking to Wikisource versions with the correct format: Genesis 1:1 rather than Genesis 1:1
  2. When a version is not on the list of supported versions, it falls back on BibleGateway: Genesis 1:1 rather than Genesis 1:1
  3. When website URLs change in the future, it will be easier to update the module than the tool (see discussions above)
  4. The module can use tracking categories and error messages to find errors in usage. I have included a tracking category for unrecognized book names and one for uses of version numbers rather than version names. I think the version numbers are not very transparent and should be changed to the more recognizable abbreviations.

I have added a number of testcases to try and identify potential problems, as this template is very widely used and I don't want to break anything. Please feel free to test other uses and let me know if you find a use case that it doesn't handle. --JFH (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Change the template to match the sandbox. This will implement Module:Bibleverse. --JFH (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: Minor tweaks to the module and scoped vars (no functionality changes). I think the main function is a bit monolithic, and some of these data arrays can probably be pulled out, some of the data transformations can occur in subroutines... maybe that's minor. Would you be able to update the doc with the changes? Also, if we're using the module to back the template, are you okay with TPROTing the module?
Have you consulted relevant WikiProjects on the functionality increase?
Anyone else have opinions on the module? — Andy W. (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now Actually, on line 187, it appears you are using an undeclared variable site at the line if valueExists(apoc, book) and version == 'nrsv' and site == 'oremus' then. Unless I'm crazy and missing something, I don't think site was initialized before this??? — Andy W. (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this was caused by a last minute change where I moved the code around and left that piece behind. I fixed it. I am definitely a noob with Lua and programming in general, so I appreciate the help. As for WikiProjects, I see the functionality change as relatively minor, but if you disagree I'd be happy to ask them. I'm OK with protection of the module. --JFH (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
JFH, is there anything that needs to be done for related templates, i.e. Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Bibleverse? — Andy W. (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Yes, I've now made proposed edits at {{Bibleverse-nb/sandbox}} and {{Bibleverse-lb/sandbox}}. The testcases appear to be working. --JFH (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
JFH, I'm a bit of a noob too, honestly. :) But my personal concern is that the module is far more difficult to maintain compared to the current template, and the current URL/data formats being assumed may not be relevant after some time, say a year or two. It's unclear to me whether this module-backing is undisputedly a better/cleaner solution. If the links expire/change, someone needs to maintain it.
Anyway, I've re-opened this TPER, and don't intend to sync this myself in the hopes that someone can take a look at the module and some of the changes and perhaps make an assessment of whether it's ready to back the template. If this is done, Module:Bibleverse deserves TPROT (can request at WP:RFPP) — Andy W. (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the module ready for deployment. But I'll leave the checking to people who understand Lua. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather than an analysis of the Lua I'd rather see an overhaul of the testcases... Matthew 7:20 (which works just fine). Cabayi (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I had forgotten about an additional improvement of the Lua version. The apocryphal books do not work with the NRSV (the default version) (Tobit 1:1) because Oremus only has the Apocrypha in the anglicized NRSV. There is a workaround in the Lua code (Tobit 1:1). --JFH (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I should also respond to MSGJ's comment regarding ease of maintenance. The module should be compared to the Bibleversefinder tool rather than {{Bibleverse}}. The above discussions document the difficulties of maintaining the tool. Right now the only person who can update the tool is me, and it is a more difficult process than editing the module. It is also more difficult to debug. With the module, any WP editor can make sandbox edits and edit requests to update, and any admin or template editor can make the edits. --JFH (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have disabled the request as I'm not sure if the change is ready yet. Please reactivate when there is consensus to deploy. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit implementing the template. The advantages are stated at the beginning of this section. If there is no opposition I will open a new request next week. I'm alerting the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism Wikiprojects. --JFH (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, this has been here for two months and the issues brought up have been resolved. Bible, Christianity, and Judaism WikiProjects have been alerted for a week with no comments. I would like to request the sandbox version be implemented. JFH (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

A few errors have arisen. The problems in the categories migt be due to bad input wikitext that was tolerated or ignored in the old template.

However there are a couple of Lua runtime errors. The current list of articles with Lua errors is showing:

Typical messages:

  • Lua error in Module:Bibleverse at line 331: attempt to concatenate local 'text' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Bibleverse at line 301: attempt to perform arithmetic on global 's_chap' (a string value).
  • Lua error: invalid capture index %3 in replacement string.

If wanted, I could look at the module later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq, I didn't know about that report. I think they're all fixed now. The ones in the tracking categories should still work for the most part. The module falls back on the old tool if the book name isn't found. --JFH (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 January 2017


I have been tracking down errors and found a few issues with Module:Bibleverse, along with issues in the main space that were causing errors. I have made edits to Module:Bibleverse/sandbox to fix the following issues:

  1. 2 Esdras is missing and 1 Esdras is duplicated
  2. The wrong abbreviations are used for Leviticus (see [19])
  3. Links to chabad.org (codes jp and jpr) had not been working with the tool for at least a year, and they are not working with the module. I added some code to reroute these to the default (NRSV). If someone wants to figure out how to link to chabad be my guest.

Please sync with the sandbox. JFH (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. There are several global variables in the module and it would be best to do some tweaks to fix that. What about using tabs for indents which is the normal style for modules? I can do these (in the sandbox) if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'd appreciate any help; I am still learning.--JFH (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Two things:
1. I would venture that links to Chabad that fail should be rerouted to Mechon Mamre, not NSRV, because someone is going to be looking for Jewish (Hebrew-English) sources.
2. I'd like to see Mechon Mamre's Hebrew-French version added so that I can port this over to frwiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:My opinion on this is that Hebrew (or Greek) resources will rarely be helpful to our readers, and we should instead default to the best English translations. Having said that I will not oppose such a change because Judaism isn't really my area. I have created Module:Sandbox/jfhutson/bibleverse with the Hebrew-French interlinear, but you will need to translate the book names and abbreviations. I also added the code BDS (La Bible du Semeur) to the list of codes that goes to Biblica.com. I couldn't find a good source for La Bible de Jérusalem, which I gather is the most important Catholic Bible, but let me know if you find one or otherwise need help. --JFH (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: Thank you for doing the French. I'll look at all that shortly.
Re Hebrew: I understand what you're trying to say. Understand that on Jewish topics, if someone is linking to Mechon Mamre or Chabad, it is because they surely want a Jewish-oriented translation, rather than a Christian-oriented translation. They may also want the Hebrew in parallel. The main difference between the two is that Chabad uses the more recent New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh, while Mechon Mamre uses the public-domain, 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America Version. But I highly doubt anyone would prefer to substitute either one of those with a Christian translation like NSRV. If you prefer to connect to Mechon Mamre's English-only pages, we can do that. But the English on that page is the same as on the Hebrew-English page, and some people would prefer to have the Hebrew too. So on the whole I think Mechon Mamre Hebrew-English is the best option right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFH: I put some suggestions in the sandbox per above. Sorry the changes look massive but in fact they are very minor. I did not examine the code but if there were something you wanted to discuss, please let me know.

Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you very much for your help. I am trying to figure out a solution for {{Bibleverse-nb}}. It needs to output just the book and chapter number with the same link. I tried in this edit to add a parameter "nobook" which would make the text equal to the chapter/verse that comes in. I added it to {{Bibleverse-nb/sandbox}}, but it's not working at Template:Bibleverse-nb/testcases. --JFH (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFH: The problem is due to the unconventional way of producing args. The module sets args to an empty table then fills it from ipairs over the parent arguments (from the template). That means args.nobook will always be nil because ipairs only deals with the integer arguments 1, 2, 3, ... so args.nobook is never set.
One workaround would be to replace the three lines which set args with:
    for k, v in pairs(pframe.args) do
	args[k] = trimArg(v)
    end
However a proper fix would be to set:
    args = frame:getParent().args
and then get the arguments wanted; each would be trimmed and given a default value as wanted.
An alternative would be to use the mysterious Module:Arguments which trims and omits blank arguments by default, I think.
Bear in mind that a call like
{{Bibleverse/sandbox| |VERSE| | |nobook=yes}}
would be interpreted as if it had been:
{{Bibleverse/sandbox|VERSE|nobook=yes}}
because the blank arguments would be omitted. I don't know if that would be desirable so I'm not sure what solution to recommend. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Johnuniq and I have made the following updates in the sandbox ([20])

  1. Whitespaces in accordance with standard style
  2. Remove unintentional globals
  3. Change Chabad rerouting to the Hebrew-English interlinear instead of the NRSV (See discussion above)
  4. Add "Mi" as abbreviation for Micah per Chicago Manual of Style
  5. Add "nobook" parameter to allow {{bibleverse-nb}} to work with this template.

Please sync with the sandbox. JFH (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranges don't work like they used to

The Lua version is misinterpreting ranges. It used to be possible to do {{Bibleverse||Genesis|1:1-5}}, and it would get correctly interpreted as 1:1-1:5, but now it's coming out incorrectly as 1:1-5:1. JFH, Andy W. et al., is there an easy fix to the module? Ibadibam (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. I've made a proposed fix in the sandbox. Here is the result for your example: Genesis 1:1–5. If there are no objections I will make the update. --JFH (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A recent edit (diff) at Phinehas ben Jair changed the firsts of the following to the second:

  • {{bibleverse-nb||ge|i.11|JP}} → Lua error: Bibleverse error: start chapter should be a number.
  • {{bibleverse-nb||gen|i.11|JP}} → Lua error: Bibleverse error: start chapter should be a number.

Lua error: Bibleverse error: start chapter should be a number.

Currently the latter shows Lua error in Module:Bibleverse at line 323: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 's_chap' (a string value). The module might need a tweak to avoid that. I looked at the code before but have forgotten when or why, and am not sure if I'll have time to look myself so JFH might like to check what happens in the new sandbox code. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: {{bibleverse-nb/sandbox||gen|i.11|JP}} currently still gives me a Lua error ... is that expected? Sorry I don't have enough context or time to jump into this right now. Hope it's resolved quickly — Andy W. (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang and Johnuniq: the problem is that the module does not handle Roman numerals. I've made a fix in the sandbox so it refers roman numerals to the old tool and adds a tracking category, so the result of the above example is Lua error: Bibleverse error: start chapter should be a number.. Ideally in my opinion the Roman numerals should be changed to Arabic because Romans seem inappropriate for WP. But at least for now they will work as intended. This is unrelated to the range issue. --JFH (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jfhutson: This issue is still happening ... have you been able to apply your fix yet? Llightex (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I've very sorry, I had forgotten about it! I will be busy in real life until about Nov 1, and I am setting a calendar reminder to fix it then.--JFH (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: Any updates? Problem still exists: {{Bibleverse||Acts|8:9–24}} gives Acts 8:9–24, linking to 8:9-24:9 rather than 8:9-8:24 as intended. Λυδαcιτγ 08:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems he is no longer active. If anyone else has the expertise to fix this issue, please do so. Λυδαcιτγ 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

I have made an edit to the module sandbox (diff) to fix the issue above (chapter:verse-verse ranges being interpreted as chapter:verse-chapter ranges; i.e. Genesis 1:5-10 being interpreted as Genesis 1:5-10:5). This change should fix the issue, so please sync the module sandbox to the live module. Danski454 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first provide some testcases that show the problem's been fixed; see WP:TESTCASES. - Danski454 "should fix the issue" doesn't inspire confidence. I don't see any difference in the testcases Template:Bibleverse/testcases that show what's been fixed. Matthew 7:20. Cabayi (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done. The test case "1 Corinthians 4:2-8" was clearly broken before the change, and now it works. Ping me here if something broke. John 11:35 – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Https for Mechon Mamre

Currently, Mechon Mamre links use HTTP on this template, but the site supports HTTPS. It does not automatically redirect HTTP to HTTPS. Can you please change it to HTTPS? That corresponds to "HE" Hebrew-English versions. -- Daviddwd (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 September 2019

Update to https for Oremus and Bible Hub. See the sandbox: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Module:Bibleverse/sandbox&diff=914297030&oldid=914296525 JFH (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Bibleversefinder2 tool

The Bibleversefinder2 tool, which is used as a failsafe if the template can't find a bible book name, is down. Yes, I am the maintainer of the tool. I took it over as a stopgap when this template relied more heavily on it. I think it's preferable to totally eliminate reliance on the Bibleversefinder2 tool from the template now rather than try to fix the tool.

I propose that we use my last sandbox edit (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Module:Bibleverse/sandbox&diff=914303981&oldid=914297030) to create a tracking category to make sure we don't have any pages currently using the Bibleversefinder2 tool. If there is a better way to do this let me know. --JFH (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: The change is correct/reasonable. Do you care about non-mainspace links to it? Right now you'll catch everything and you may not want to. --Izno (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Inzo: I'm sure I can sift through the category and just fix the mainspace ones, but if there is an easy way to only include the mainspace I'd be happy with that as well. Thanks! --JFH (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This should probably work to tell you what the namespace is: 
this_page = mw.title.getCurrentTitle()
is_content_namespace = this_page.inNamespaces( ... )
where the latter is listed at meta and you have to fill in the namespace IDs. I think. =) --Izno (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Source/version

Shouldn't the version be indicated by the template. Wouldn't, for example, using HE as one's source/version the following

Deuteronomy 26:16-19 (HE)

(or, whatever the correct format) be more informative and clear than

Deuteronomy 26:16-19

Without indication it could be assumed that any random translation of the Bible is being cited, whereas the template lists 6 versions in its documentation. Hyacinth (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed PandaWent (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Add a translation?

The template doesn't recognize the Good News Bible (GNB) translation, formerly known as Today's English Version. I couldn't find the template code to try to add it myself; would someone better-versed in template editing please do that? The external link for the documentation is here. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 18:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

"v_range", unsafe URL construction

Line 337, 339: 

	local v_range
	if s_ref[2] == nil then                             --case of chapter range only
		v_range = s_chap ..'–' .. e_chap
	else
		v_range = s_chap ..':' .. s_vers ..'–' .. e_chap ..':' .. e_vers    --case of chapter and verse range
	end

Unicode hyphen (U+2013, 0xE28093) used over the standard hyphen (U+002D, 0x2D). Which causes browser compatibility issues. (the interpretation of non URI encoded unusual string literals in URL has rather inconsistent behavior among browsers)

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the dash characters above are en dashes, which is the correct character for a range, per MOS:DASH and MOS:RANGE. What is the change you would like to see? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there an example of a problem in an article? Presumably that would be an instance of this template that produces a certain URL, and that could be provided, along with a reason why it is unsafe. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Bibleverse/Archive_1&oldid=1179915305"