Talk:King James Bible

I think article King James Version should be moved to this title - it's where most people would expect to find it. --Anon

I agree -- "King James Version" is unnecessarily ambiguous; I'm sure old King James had many versions of different things. Do you want to perform the move or should I? --maveric149


 * I have frequently heard it called the KJV and never the KJB. Maybe you should ask some people who use it, since it's their community name? Or you could search for "King James Bible" on google and note that all of the top hits are actually talking about the "King James Version"...


 * And while you're at it, don't forget to bugger the capitalization. GregLindahl

The issue here is ambiguity, not what most people call it. Most people call George W. Bush simply Bush and it is understood because of context. In an encyclopedia you must name things with a reasonable minimum amount of ambiguity. If the original person who posted this feels so inclined I wouldn't object to a move. The capitalization of King James Bible is correct because it is a proper name. --maveric149


 * If ambiguity is the problem, then you could use King James Version of the Bible as the title. People simply don't call it the King James Bible, as I said previously, so your example is a poor one. As for your capitalization argument, it's amazing how you believe one thing one minute and another the next, but hey, I'm sure you feel completely justified. GregLindahl


 * King James Version of the Bible it is then. There is no inconsistancy in naming here. "King" doesn't matter because it is case-insensitive (should be capitalized though because it is the part of a book name and person's title), "James" is the name of a person and therefore a proper noun, and "Bible" is a part of a book's name and always capitalized in that context. -- end of story. --maveric149

Ah. Well, I'm glad that you can recognize a proper name in at least one circumstance; I was beginning to wonder. GregLindahl