Template talk:Infobox Bible translation

message: Good work. I've added an optional image and a border (looks nicer that way). Also, I've changed the relative "em" box size to a fixed, pixel-based one. I know fixed widths are evil, but as far as I can tell there's no way to specify the width of an image in "em"s. Please don't hit me. Collard 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you think is best.  Brusselsshrek 11:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you're so confident in me (that or just naive, wink). I've added a "derived_from" field for translations which are derived from both an English text and the Hebrew/Greek text. ESV, NKJV, WEB come to mind. (You'll see this in action on the ESV page in a moment.)
Very nice work! Two details:
*Is there any real difference between "religious affiliation" and denomonation?
*Let's put in apocrypha (yes or no / what books). Dovi 12:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Wareh and I are discussing the reading level problem.  The "grade level" can vary by as much as 5 grades depending on the scoring calculation (Flesch Kincaid and Gunning Fog are typically 2 to 4 grades apart because of different methods of calculation).  I've also found that most of the numbers available online stem from Zondervan, which seems to put a Gunning Fog number on the competitors and something closer to a Flesch Kincaid number on the NIV.  After doing some tests in Word and Readability Studio, I've suggested to Wareh that we put a broad description in the reading level box instead of a number.  The description should agree with BOTH the online Zondervan numbers and the numbers that are reproducible on Word processor tools or specialty readability tools.  Examples, CEV "Grade School." NIV "Middle School."  ASV "High School."  If there are no objections here or from Wareh, I'll make those changes this week.  However, since no single site has information on all of these translations, can I leave the attribution off, or do I have to hunt each one down?
Thanks.
Tim 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The essential thing is to include only a verifiable measurement by a widely available test, so that we're not offering an original synthesis of several sources.  Wareh 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wareh -- hence my suggestion to give a broad description that will fit anything that people either do themselves or find online.  I think I forgot to mention -- Flesch-Kincaid shows up with different scores depending on the software you are using.  I've scored the same file at 6.0 in Microsoft Word, 7.4 in the old DOS Readability Plus, and 7.7 in the Readability Suite.  Again, this was the same file and the same Flesch Kincaid test.  Each software consistently came up with the same score as itself, but different from the other software.  Even if we settled on Flesch-Kincaid, we'd now have the problem of which tool to draw the Flesch-Kincaid from.  A "verifiable" measurement isn't verifiable if it varies with the software.  Also, people will be trying to verify the scores on the different web sites out there, which won't be identifying their tool or scoring method.  I think that you were right about the descriptive values in the Textual Basis and Translation Method.  I think your idea applies here too.  Virtually everyone will be able to verify "Grade School," "Middle School," and "High School" regardless of the source or software they are using. Tim 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading Levels

message: It is being disputed at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_12#Copyrighted_quotes_in_infoboxes that displaying quoted verses in the infobox is a copyright violation (for translations for which copyright has not expired). It is being suggested that if the infobox presents quoted verses, that it should indicate why the quotations are being used. At the very least, I would suggest reordering, so that the quoted verses are shown immediately after the type of translation. Needs further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting a single verse is absolutely within fair use.  There isn't a copyright holder on the planet who wouldn't want a verse of his translation represented in an article ABOUT his translation. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to the people disputing it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to -- where do I find them? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright dispute 

message: The template is currently displaying blocks of text titled "Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear" and "Concordant Greek Text Sublinear". I don't understand why these are here at all. Should they be removed? Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These were added as a result of a copyright concern about quoting verses from copyright-protected translations. See link from topic above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: There are no "non-English" words in the template. Maybe you refer to the Hebrew loan-word Elohim, and the obscure English word eonian. And many 'lifelong church persons' wouldn't know a bible if they fell over one. The quoted verses compared to the interlinear text help demonstrate the style of translation, and the copyright argument (not proposed by me) is that if there is nothing to compare with, there is no justification in quoting key verses from the selected translation at all. If you have an issue with this, perhaps you should continue the original discussion from the link above with User:Moonriddengirl.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the verses collapsible so they don't clutter the template by default, while still retaining the verses (with the comparison for copyright purposes).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Hebrew and Greek sublinear texts should be removed. They clutter the box. And they add the impression that the sublinear is some sort of golden standard to which the others should be compared. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter's suggestion here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. Looking further up, I see the rationale was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_12#Copyrighted_quotes_in_infoboxes (introduced right at the end of the discussion at 23:34, 3 October 2008). But frankly, it's a bad solution. Adding the "sublinear" for "comprarison" just clutters and confuses. The verses are fine alone - they give a flavour of the translation style - and then users can click to other translations to compare, if they wish to. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, if the lack of context is the problem (the point User:Moonriddengirl kept hammering at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_12#Copyrighted_quotes_in_infoboxes), then we should delete the verses from this template, and instead create the articles Genesis 1:1 in different Bible translations and John 3:16 in different Bible translations, and provide links to those articles in this template. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your first suggestion was best.  The verses just give us a sense of style.  The concordant just reads like bad Amplified Bible drafts.  It's not necessary.  I appreciate her concern, but I don't think it's warranted.  SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it occurs to me that we could have our cake and eat it too: Quote the verse and then, in place of the current Hebrew/Greek sublinear, have links to Genesis 1:1 in different Bible translations and John 3:16 in different Bible translations respectively, to satisfy the copyright concerns. I'm a little wary of going against a consensus which was established at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with that.  Good thinking!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the suggested articles (Genesis 1:1 in different Bible translations and John 3:16 in different Bible translations) are warranted. If the path chosen is to link to relevant articles, there are existing articles for Genesis 1:1 and John 3:16, which already contain various translations of those verses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've done the change, explicitly pointing to the Genesis 1:1 and John 3:16 pages for alternative translations. Hopefully this will satisfy the WP:NFC concerns. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: If you are going to quote John 3:16 I'd also like you to quote James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." There are people who don't like John 3:16 out of context and that is the easiest way to put it back into it. ThePepel-Eterni (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point changing the verse every time someone thinks a certain verse might better suit a particular denomination. The verses that were selected were used because they are verses that have their own articles, and there are reasons related to using copyright sources for doing so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Concordant ... sublinear" display