Template talk:Bibleref2

Default
Why is the default TNIV? Wouldn't it be better to go to NET Bible or a similar (more impartial) resource? NET bible for example displays a range of translations automatically for any single Bible verse.

See, e.g. John 3:16 on NET bible:


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

This would be so much better IMHO.

Your thoughts? Mr magnolias (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can reset Bibleref2, Bibleref2c, Bibleref2-nb, Bibleref2c-nb to default to any version at bible.org, but a default version is required. The main advantage to Bibleref2 is that it is quick for an editor to enter a Bible reference with it. An editor can insert a different default on a per-insertion basis. When the user clicks on the verse's hyperlink, it brings the verse up in the default version, but right above it is a menu window to select any of the many versions available, and in other languages.


 * Bibleref2 is in such wide use that we would not want to make such a major change to it. Thanks for your suggestion.
 * ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with user:Mr magnolias that the NIV is not a good choice for the default. It seems to have become a sort of "default translation" in many churches, even though it's not a good translation in many, many verses (see NIV). By using it as the default for Wikipedia citations, we are simply reinforcing this unfortunate trend. Most people don't know whether it's a good translation or not, so they have no reason to click on a different translation. I don't think the fact that Bibleref2 is in wide use is a reason not to change it. The opposite! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am agreed that the TNIV is not useful here. I probably breached some protocol changing this; if so, I apologize.  I switched it to the ESV because the TNIV is now-defunct.  They're currently cancelling and revising it.  The ESV enjoys significantly broader Protestant usage as well. DRJ (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 07:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


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


 * But we shouldn't be promoting the NIV like this. It's impractical to go through existing articles adding a version parameter to every instance of Bibleref2. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Use biblegateway's default?
If we omit the &version= parameter, biblegateway.com allow user to set a default bible using cookies. Why not just use that one? -- 59.148.232.130 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Trouble is, I think NIV is the default at biblegateway, and most people don't realize how faulty the NIV is. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Plainlinks
Why does this template use ? Isn't that misleading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The plainlinks class removes the little arrow that would normally accompany an 'external' link. The objective here is to clean up the bibleref2 citations. The blue arrow icons further kluge the edited pages, and there have been quite a few complaints about how using any Bible citation in the text create hard-to-read text blocks. So plainlinks and superscript options were added to help create cleaner appearances. Misleading? I don't see how since the result clearly shows the source to be Biblegateway. Thanks for your concern. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So why don't we use  with IMDb or YouTube links or any of the other links in the Category:External link templates? I checked a couple of other templates in the Category:Bible link templates, and they did not use  ; why this one? Surely, the reason for those little arows is to inform the user of the nature of the link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibleref2 v. Bibleverse
I'm now a bit confused, when exactly should I use the Bibleverse Template and when the Bibleref2? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bibleverse I feel that since the Bibleverse Template give the all list of the different languages and versions and there every reader can choose and compare, would be for general citations better. Are there any guideline on the use of the two different Template? I noticed a difference: in the Bibleref2 Template if the name of the book is written in the short form, the citation would appear as superscript. I find the option very useful. --Dia^ (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Intended for use in article bodies?
Is this template intended for use in the body of articles? If so, it seems in clear violation of ELPOINTS 2 (for which "exceptions are rare"), and the suppression of the arrow symbol further obscures the fact that external links are being used in-text. If it is only intended for use in citations, that should be added to the documentation. --JFH (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a really good point to which I wish someone would respond. I recently was reading an article with one of this links in the body and was surprised when a link in article body took me to an external website rather than another wikipedia article.  --Federalist51 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Some fixes

 * Fixed URL encoding, so spaces should now work, and made the second parameter optional:
 * Can now explicitly use the default translation version (i.e., don't pass a version to BibleGateway at all) by specifying " ".
 * Removed the extraneous semicolons from the URL (mostly harmless but annoying).
 * Added class "nourlexpansion", which prevents the biblegateway URL from showing up when printed (ugh!).
 * Added tags for a clean doc page.
 * Factored out the URL, including the default version (currently NIV), into a sub-template Template:bibleref2/url, for each of the four templates.
 * Factored out the URL, including the default version (currently NIV), into a sub-template Template:bibleref2/url, for each of the four templates.

Also note that Template:hide in print and Template:only in print are currently broken and likely will not be fixed. However, the brokenness is simply that printing will be the same as on-screen, and the workaround is to add the "plainlinks" and "nourlexpansion" classes, which has been done. If you export to PDF, you just get some extraneous biblegateway URLs in the References section, which is not too bad.

Note: I've preserved the non-breaking (of spaces) of these templates, but I actually see no reason to prevent them from breaking.

For the Template:bibleref2c template:


 * Removed the false link coloring of the brackets and made the brackets part of the link, as with "real" footnotes.
 * Added class "reference", which prevents bold/italic from being picked up from the surrounding text.
 * Removed unnecessary  wrappers.
 * Template:bibleref2c-nb now delegates to Template:bibleref2c, for easier maintenance.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Default should be changed
I agree with those above who have said that the default should not be the NIV or TNIV. Here's a quote from N.T. Wright (taken from the article NIV): "When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses.... Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul's letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said.... [I]f a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about." Personally I favor the KJV because of the "thees and thous", as this distinguishes between singular and plural, but I realize that most people find it old-fashioned. Why not use either the New King James (NKJV) or the ESV?

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

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


 * Actually, I favor the default being to not specify a version. An explicit version is optional, after all, and without it, BibleGateway will then use whatever version the user was previously using, or NIV for first-time visitors. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Default to NRSV and use different sites
A few things:

The NRSV is preferred by biblical scholars and should be the default. See this. I say this as someone who uses the ESV for personal use, but I recognize that academics prefer the NRSV.

Bible gateway should be avoided when an ad-free version is available. For the NRSV, use Oremus. For the KJV, Bible (King James), for the ESV, ESVBible.com. --JFH (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the default to NRSV, but I am hesitant to try to make it point to places other than BibleGateway because I am worried about breaking it. Right now it takes a lot of different reference styles and abbreviations, some of which aren't supported by Oremus and certainly not WikiSource. If anyone has ideas let me know. --JFH (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The NRSV is a Christian text and is perhaps preferred by Christian biblical scholars; this template keeps being used for Judaism-related discussions of articles which is a big issue. Sefaria should be used for the Tanakh when possible. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)