Template talk:Bibleverse

Template:Bibleverse is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bibleverse template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 June 18. The result of the discussion was "withdrawn by nominator".

Vulgata Clementina

Noting this is at Wikisource:la:Vulgata Clementina but not yet supported here; does LA WS need to do anything to make this possible? Jim Killock (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my first question would be whether anyone is actually going to link to a Latin bible edition on enWiki (especially when we have five versions in English to link to). Primefac (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First parameter as book number

Although it is no longer documented, for backwards compatibility, this template can use the first parameter as a book number, eg.:

Markup	Renders as
{{Bibleverse\|1\|Samuel\|3:16-4:18}}	1 Samuel 3:16–4:18
{{Bibleverse\|1 Samuel\|3:16-4:18}}	1 Samuel 3:16–4:18

Because of this, some transclusions of this template leave the first parameter blank. This feature is deprecated and may be removed in the future. Daask (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is optional doesn't necessarily mean that it's deprecated; usually when something is deprecated there is a note saying as such, tracking categories set up, and an active push made to eliminate those uses. That does not seem to be the case here. If it works both ways, I see no reason to change it. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the code (see the section with the comment "first argument is a numeric prefix and second is book name"), you can see that it is by design. Wikilinking the book name even works: 1 Samuel 1:15–16. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying the translation in the citation?

It may not be obvious to the reader that a given citation of a Bible verse is from a particular translation. It certainly wasn't immediately obvious to me at The Bible and homosexuality. I had to inspect the URL and take a guess.

I think it would be a good idea to include the name of the translation in the citation, with a wikilink to the translation's article if available. EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 11:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that User:GraemeLeggett mentioned that the citations generated by this template lack this rather pertinent information. I'm a little surprised that nobody noticed. EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 11:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this template needs to decide on what it is. If we're talking about using it as a reference for quoting the Bible, then I agree; it should absolutely be in some form of {{cite book}} format. According to Bible citation, though, all that is needed is the book name and verse; however, this is antithetical to the stated purpose of this template to specifically not be an in-line reference. I'm happy to code up whatever is decided, but I don't necessarily want to be making a ton of changes that then need to be reverted because a local consensus says one thing and broader consensus after the change is made says another. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I took a look at the code earlier today, to see if I implement it myself, and I found the code really hard to understand. All the information about sites, books, and versions broken up into separate tables, and the common logic is mixed in with special cases for each source. I'm not sure that putting another pair of tables in the code (one for whether to wikilink, another to specify the title or link text) is a wise idea. Is there a particular reason for the individual tables, rather than having one table each for versions, sites, etc., or is it just the way the code has grown over the years?

If the latter, I'd be sorely tempted to rewrite the module. EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 13:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't build the module, so I can't really speak to its structure; this and subsequent discussions are about the module conversion. If you think you can do a better/cleaner job than what's already there, by all means go for it; the merger with the other Bible verse templates was a pain in the arse trying to plug all of the extras in there. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biblica issues

Just noting here for future reference that Biblica has changed formats; NLT is now the "New Luo Translation" in Dholuo (see e.g. Genesis 1:15–16). If all of these codes for NIV are supposed to link to the NIV, methinks the module should be changed to point to the NIV version if any of the relevant Biblica codes are entered.

Note that I have yet to check if the other codes for the other sites still work as intended. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]