Template talk:English Bible translations

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles

Translation studies

This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles

English Language

This template is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles

Archives

Archive 1

Untitled 2018

The 1611 KJV wasn't written as a christian bible. That was not King James intent. Olsuzanna (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting template to November 2016

I noticed this template is generally meant to be placed directly under the infobox of all English Bible translation articles. The template as it currently stands features a cover of the King James Version Bible. This change was made in December 2016. The King James Version translation is obviously historically significant, but with this template meant to be on *all* English Bible translation articles, I don't think it makes sense (particularly on modern translation articles) to have the King James Version featured. I feel it degrades the tidiness and flow of multiple articles.

I propose this template should revert to its November 2016 state, merging this with a minor category change made in 2020.

If there is no opposition to this proposition, I will soon create a new edit merging the content of the November 2016 edit and the latest edit (from 2020).

VistaSunset (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change to the template. VistaSunset (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]