Template talk:Bibleref2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plainlinks

Why does this template use <span class="plainlinks">? Isn't that misleading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So why don't we use <span class="plainlinks"> 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 <span class="plainlinks">; 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)[reply]

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? --Dia^ (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]