Template talk:Bibleref2

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Bibleref2

Default

Why TNIV default? Would not it be better to go to a NET Bible or similar source (more impartial)? The NET Bible for instance displays the various translations automatically for each Bible verse.

Lihat, mis. Yohanes 3:16 di Alkitab NET:

• http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=3&verse=16

It will be much better IMHO.

Your mind? Mr magnolia (talk) 02:35, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

We can reset Bibleref2, Bibleref2c, Bibleref2-nb, Bibleref2c-nb to default to any version on bible.org, but the default version is required. The main advantage of Bibleref2 is that it is quick for an editor to include biblical references with it. The editor can enter a different default on the insertion basis. When the user clicks on the hyperlink verse, it carries the verse in the default version, but just above it is the menu window to select one of the many versions available, and in other languages.

Bibleref2 is so vast that we do not want to make big changes. Thank you for your advice.

-AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:15, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the user: Mr. magnolia that NIV is not a good choice for default. It seems to have become a kind of "default translation" in many churches, though that is not a good translation in many, many verses (see Section NIV # Reception). By using it as the default for Wikipedia excerpts, we only reinforce this unfavorable trend. Most people do not know if it's a good translation or not, so they have no reason to click on a different translation. I do not think the fact that Bibleref2 is widely used is the reason for not changing it. Otherwise! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that TNIV is useless here. I may violate some of the protocols that change this; if so, i'm sorry. I divert it to ESV because TNIV is now-dead. They are currently canceling and revising it. ESV enjoys a significantly wider Protestant usage as well. DRJ (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 07:21, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you do not want to display the default version, you are not forced to use it. Change by adding another parameter to the syntax, separated by this character (|) at the end of the command. Mdoc7 (talk) 20:15, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

But we can not promote NIV like this. It is not practical to read an existing article by adding the version parameters to each Bibleref2 instance. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Use bible gateway's default?

If we ignore the & amp; version =, biblegateway.com allows users to set default bible using cookies. Why not just wear that one? - 59,148,232,130 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, I think NIV is the default on the biblegateway, and most people do not realize how wrong NIV is. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Plainlink

Why this template uses & lt; span class = "plainlinks" & gt; ? Is not that misleading? - Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

The plainlinks class eliminates the small arrows that will normally accompany the 'external' link. The goal here is to clear the bibleref2 quote. The blue arrow icon further clogs up the edited pages, and there are some complaints about how to use any Bible quotes in the text make the text block hard to read. So plainlink and superscript options are added to help create a cleaner appearance. Misleading? I do not see how because the results clearly show the source to be a Biblegateway. Thank you for your concern. -AFA Prof01 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So why do not we use & lt; span class = "plainlinks" & gt; with IMDb or YouTube links or other links within Categories: Templates of external links? I checked some other templates in the Category Link template: The Bible, and they do not use & lt; span class = "plainlinks" & gt; ; why this one? Of course, the reason for them is to inform users of the nature of the links. - Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Bibleref2

Bibleref2 v. Bibleverse

I am now a bit confused, when exactly should I use the Bibleverse Template and when is Bibleref2? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bibleverse I feel that since the Bibleverse Template provides all the different language lists and versions and there every reader can choose and compare, it will be a better general quote. Is there a guide about using two different Templates? I see the difference: in the Bibleref2 Template if the book name is written in short form, the quote will appear as a superscript. I find this option very useful. --De ^ (talk) 08:03, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Intended for use in article bodies?

Is this template meant for use in article bodies? If so, it seems clear violating ELPOINTS 2 (the "rare exception"), and the emphasis of the arrow symbol further obscures the fact that external links are used in text. If only intended for use in quotations, which should be added to the documentation. --JFH (talk) 16:19, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good point that I hope someone will respond to. Recently I read an article with one of the links in the body and was surprised when the link in the body of the article took me to an external website rather than another wikipedia article. --Federalist51 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Some improvements

• The URL encoding is fixed, so the space should now work, and create an optional second parameter:

  {{bibleref2 | 2 Peter 1: 1, 21}} == & gt; 2 Peter 1: 1, 21

• Now can explicitly use the default translation version (i.e., do not pass it to BibleGateway at all) by specifying "! ".
• Removes foreign semicolons from URLs (mostly harmless but annoying).
• Added the "nourlexpansion" class, which prevents the bibleg URL from appearing when printed (ugh!).
• Added & lt; can only & gt; tags for clean document pages.
• Create exit URLs, including the default version (currently NIV), into sub-templates. Template: bibleref2/url, for each of the four templates.

Also note that Template: hide in print and Template: only in the current mold is damaged and likely will not be fixed. However, the destruction is simply that the printing will be the same as on the screen, and the solution is to add the "plainlinks" and "nourlexpansion" classes, which have been done. If you export to PDF, you only get some foreign bible URLs in the References section, which is not too bad.

Note: I have maintained the non-breaking (spaces) of this template, but I really see no reason to prevent it.

For Templates: bibleref2c template:

• Unlinks false brackets and creates parenthesis brackets, as with "real" footnotes.
• Added a "reference" class, which prevents bold/italics from being captured from surrounding text.
• Removed & lt; span & gt; wrapping.
• Template: bibleref2c-nb now delegate to Template: bibleref2c, for easier maintenance. â € <â € <

--SlothMcCarty (bicara) 11:56, 1 Desember 2013 (UTC)

Default harus diubah

I agree with the people above who have said that defaults should not be NIV or TNIV. This quote from N.T. Wright (taken from NIV article):

When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who greeted it with joy. I believe in his own claims about himself, that he is determined to translate precisely what is there, and injects an additional glafir or interpretive glafir.... Disillusionment occurs over the next two years, as I lecture verse by verse through some of Paul's letters, not a few Galatians and Romans. Over and over again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I find that translators have another principle, much higher than stated: to make sure that Paul has to say what a broad Protestant and evangelical tradition says he says.... [I] fa church alone, or especially, depends on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul is talking about.

Personally I like KJV because "thees and thous", because it distinguishes between singular and plural, but I realize that most people consider it ancient. Why not use the New James King (NKJV) or ESV?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the default to English Standard Version because there has been no response in the last week. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:40, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I support a default that does not specify a version. An explicit version is optional, after all, and without it, BibleGateway will then use whatever version the previous user used, or NIV for first time visitors. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Default to NRSV and use a different site

Several things:

NRSV is preferred by biblical scholars and should be the standard. Look at this. I say this as someone who uses ESV for personal use, but I admit that academics prefer NRSV.

Biblical gates should be avoided when an ad-free version is available. For NRSV, use Oremus. For KJV, s: Bible (King James), for ESV, ESVBible.com. --JFH (talk) 17:54, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the default to NRSV, but I hesitate to try to make it point to places other than BibleGateway because I am afraid it will ruin it. Nowadays it takes many different reference styles and abbreviations, some of which are not supported by Oremus and certainly not WikiSource. If anyone has any ideas let me know. --JFH (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia