392
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
counter-riposte!
:: Graham again.
* I think we should start with free versions and at a bare minimum have the WEB version and the Greek and Hebrew. But ultimately the more versions the better. But let's start with one English translation and the original language versions. How does that sound?
* I'm very happy with tucking away pages the way as you have suggested. Will we still be able to easily show the text from any page using something similar to <nowiki>{{web_verse|john|1|1}}</nowiki> and will we still be able to keep the little "edit" link so that the Bible text itself can be editted edited to add links?
* And if we do it this way then where can we still put footnotes specific to particular versions, for example, a footnote showing the Greek manuscript variants for the Greek version?
:: --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 10:37, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
::: Aquatiki's counter-riposte
* I agree with your first point 100%.
* Quoting will be as easy as you imagine. Linking to "edit" is easy too.
* '''New point''': Isn't adding links to bible words an pretty big judgment call? Are we not adding a layer of interpretation to the bible? On my wiki I decided against doing that at all, but perhaps we could bracket it some way here, if you're keen on it. Otherwise, can we really call it the KJV or WEB? (I know we do it with the Greek/Hebrew/Latin, but I don't think you're proposing to only link to a dictionary-like page for English words).
* Would the footnotes need to be displayed every time the text is quoted, or only seen on the original page, or be electable? All are possible.
::: --[[User:Aquatiki|Aquatiki]] 10:44, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
