Template talk:RQ:King James Version

-ized vs -ised
Apparently, while authorise is a known and accepted British spelling, the KJV is always referred to with the -ized form. See w:Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version/Archive_March_to_April_2008, and w:Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version/Archive_to_Feb_2008 for copious, but definitive, discussion. I've merged the Template:RQ:Authorised Version into this one, per the above. JesseW 07:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed by the arguments you call "definitive" — I'd like to see a source that uses "-ise" in general but "-ized" for this proper noun (unlike, say, Oxford University Press sources, which all use "-ize" in general) — but we might as well standardize on something. :-)  —Ruakh TALK 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read the links above, they are claiming that while "authorize" is sometimes written "authorise" in the UK, "authorized" (the past tense) is always written with the -ized ending. So, if that's right, you won't find a source which uses "authorised" and "the Authorized Version"; although, I suppose, you could look for a source that uses "authorise" and "the Authorized Version".  Good luck, post here if you find it! JesseW 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Better still: Use neither. The standard form is KJV and the inline link removes ambiguity w/r/t any version or alternative phrasing. — LlywelynII  22:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've created Template:RQ:KJV as a redirect to this template, so you can now use it . As for "authorise" vs "authorized": does find ~45 books, of which half seem to be books using "authorise (something)" but "authorized version" (the rest are dictionaries or cases where "authorised [version]" was scanned as "authorise" for some reason)... but  finds far more than 45 books, so I don't think it's common to use "authorise" but "authorized". - -sche (discuss) 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Date
Should not be 1611 if we're using the Modern English phrasing and orthography at Wikisource. Do we have a date for when the current spelling was finalized? Until that date is being used, this template should direct to the actual 1611 form of the text. — LlywelynII  22:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ — LlywelynII  22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template needs to be fixed
The template and maybe also the documentation needs to be fixed: It seems the template once linkes to Bible (King James) which according to Authorized King James Version isn't from 1611 but from 1769. Then the link got changed, and now it needs to be fixed. Can anyone please fix this template? -Poskim (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It says that the template links to Wikisource, but it doesn't.
 * results in a broken link. With the link works, but the link text is incorrect.

Template:RQ:King James Version
Have you read my post in Grease pit/2017/June, and the March 2016 post in Template talk:RQ:King James Version? Are you planning to fix the template? I'm frustrated because typing everything by hand is tiresome and the old citations look silly, even though they were formatted correctly at the time. I don't care so much where the text links, the worst thing is that books like 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles etc. cannot be entered at all. If you don't know how to fix the template please say so and ask help from somebody else.--Makaokalani (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see the Grease Pit message, possibly because my user name has changed to Sgconlaw. Let me look into the matter. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK,, try out the template now. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, now it's basically working fine. The old text looks stylish...Two minor problems remain. You can see them both in Aeneas:
 * Colons produce an empty line. The old template did not include them, so they remain in hundreds of old citations. If it's not possible to remove the empty line I think it's better to remove automatic colons from the new template. After all, many users never use colons in quotations, and quotations look all right without them. An empty line is disturbing and might be misunderstood.
 * If there are two or more verses formatted like 9:33-34 the template links to the beginning of the chapter. This is a very minor nuisance though. It's easy to stroll down to the correct verse. --Makaokalani (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is better for to be aligned with other quotation templates, which is why it makes use of . The issue with colons should be fixed by bot or by hand. If there is a range of verses, it should be indicated with the template like this: . The template will then link properly. Regards, — SGconlaw (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please run a bot then,, to clean up the problem your edits created. You've been here long enough to know that no one else will do it. Or do you expect me to do it by hand?--Makaokalani (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Redundant template?
Isn't redundant with this? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. is a citation template used in "References" sections and on talk pages.  is a quotation template used to format quotations below definitions in entries. I have updated  so that it now works in the same way as . — SGconlaw (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding "page" for URL of the online version
I do not understand how adding "page" is not a good solution because the URL only needs "page" in the template to work. There is no other solution except adding "page". J3133 (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For some reason which I’ve not fully investigated, your edit caused the chapter and verse information to disappear completely and be replaced by “[1]” (see the examples on the documentation page), so that was not a suitable edit. In addition, the original work is unpaginated. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to artificially add page numbers that did not originally exist. If I am not understanding what you were trying to achieve, do explain further. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will explain further: Some pages (e.g., the current WOTD,, in “References”) use links to the online version. Instead of writing the URL in the template, only the page could be added to the template to add the link to the online version. It would be easier, to not write the full URL every time you want to add a link to the online version (i.e., simply “ ”, instead of “ ”). I do not think the argument that it is artificial works because the link itself is artificial, already paginated. J3133 (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. So if you are not intending for the Internet Archive "page" number to be actually displayed, that shouldn't raise any concerns. However, the wikitext which you implemented is incorrect for the reason stated above. Let me have a look at it. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you added it but only with “ ” in the URL. My revision changed it to " ” (to show two pages instead of one) when “ ” is “2–1” (i.e., the quotation is from the second column of one page to the first column of the other page, which means the quotation is from two pages), but maybe this could be done more efficiently (i.e., the quotations are not always from only one page but the link shows one page). J3133 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possible to alter the template so that if page is used it will display two pages instead of one page, but is this useful? It will only "work" if it happens that the quotation starts on a verso page and continues on the next recto page. If a quotation starts on a recto page and then continues overleaf on the next verso page, then the reader will only be able to see the part on the recto. Would it not be better to just display the single page that the entry word appears on? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to link the page on which the quotation begins so that the quotation can be read from the beginning to the end (instead of the page the entry word appears on)? I agree that displaying two pages will only work under specific conditions and should not be added. J3133 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So far in all quotation templates, though, the choice has been to link to the page on which the entry appears on in such cases. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you also add page to ? J3133 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'm busy right now. I can do it tomorrow, or you could try copying and pasting the code over from this template yourself. Try it at Template:R:King James Version/sandbox first and make sure there are no errors before you update the template page itself. Also remember to update the documentation page accordingly. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good job with updating ! — SGconlaw (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How should the different font in the text be indicated in Wiktionary? Using, or something else? For example, “am” in Jeremiah 9:24. J3133 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not bother with font changes, because that doesn't affect the words used. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But they are not simply stylistic changes, those words are intended to stand out. I would say it affects the words similarly to the use of bold and italics in books. J3133 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the work that explains what the difference in font is supposed to mean? It doesn't look like it's intended for emphasis, somehow. In other works, where some text other than the entry is already bold, I've changed that to italics. You could do that, but other people may question what the italics are supposed to mean. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BibleGateway.com uses italics for text in the different font (example (Deuteronomy 5:14); page, column 2). J3133 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(Relocated a discussion that didn't relate to this template.) — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Issue with the |brackets= parameter
Any idea why the brackets parameter is not working properly for this template? There seems to be an unwanted line break somewhere. See the following example:



I don't see this problem with other quotation templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking a look. Benwing2 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tracked this to the call to in the footer. This template always wraps its param in , and this confuses the module. Perhaps  should do nothing if given an empty param, but I was concerned this might break other things, so instead I changed  not to call  if the footer is empty. Benwing2 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ah, I see. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparing to the New International Version
Is there a better way to format the comparison in the quotation in (sense “11.  A jar.”)? I.e., to put it within the template itself, provide the year of the New International Version, etc. J3133 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Compare, which has the value “NIV” defined for the parameter tr, which adds “, with translation of the New International Version:”. For example, used in. Also compare the quotations of the New International Version in. J3133 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you forget this? J3133 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, haven't had time to look into this. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can add a ver or version parameter, and then t or translation can be used to add a translation into the NIV. Will that suffice? (By the way what's this edit for?) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See termlang of and where I used it. J3133 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. By the way, I've added ver/version and t/translation to the template. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the r rotunda (ꝛ) be used in quotations, as the long s (ſ) is used? J3133 (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m leaning towards no, because a lot of devices don’t provide proper font support for it. As it is, I’m viewing your message on a tablet and all I see is a rectangle. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Should chapter numbers be in Roman numerals?
converts the chapter numbers into Roman numerals. What about the KJV template, should it also convert the chapter numbers into Roman numerals, because the book uses Roman numerals for them? J3133 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)