Site Organization question

Summary:

Should entries be alphabetical, topical or chronological?

Site Organization question

Bible_wiki 16 Aug 2007 19:22

How should Bible Version entries be arranged? Several possibilities include:

1) Alphabetical based on either the version name of translator name. Advantage - easy to find a given entry. Disadvantage - does not reveal any structure.

2) Topical based on general criteria. For example a section on Complete Bibles versus portions versus New Testaments. Or topics based on who created the version (original languages, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, other)

3) Chronological - listed by date.

What do you think?

Re: Site Organization question

Mike_y 28 Jan 2009 05:49

I don't see anything wrong with listing the works in multiple ways. That may be easier to suggest than to implement tho, if there isn't an easy way to verify all the pages are listed from a list page, and verifying that you don't have sort-of duplicates showing up under author listing and title-date naming (should I name that new page geneva or wittingham.)

In addition, I'd like to see more fields standardized, and Contents have some standard abbreviations.

Additional Fields: {Based On: used for work (other translations or original bibles listed here. It is important to know if a work is an update of KJV or a translation of the Vulgate, LXX or the Majority Texts, etc.) Obviously not all works will immediately be clear where they came from, but for the ones that are, having this catalogued is invaluable.}

Contents abbreviations: NT, OT, AP, CR (Cross References) FN (Footnotes) CM (Commentary), MP (Maps), SH (Section Headings), WOC (Words of Christ), GL - Glossary, DR - Daily reading (table or inline), SG (Study guides). For Non-standard works with missing books (Good As New - 2004 for instance) something Like NT (missing Revelation).

Re: Site Organization question

Bible_wiki 05 Feb 2009 16:23

Just a quick comment on Contents Abbreviations. I added a page (http://bibles.wikidot.com/contents) that tries to come up with a set of standard abbreviations. Take a look and see what you think.

Re: Site Organization question

m-kaly 18 Feb 2009 18:34

About Classification

Hello there, I agree with Mike-y that it may soon be impossible to keep control if works are listed in multiple ways using "copies" of the data. Each item should be described in just 1 (one) entry, no matter which idea was applied by the original author for classification. Some kind of search engine will find whatever is asked for, as long as the answer is in the data.

As most Bibles are translations anyway, a few more fields may be significant though not mandatory. So why not allow to add them individually if the information is vailable; e.g. translator, commentator, revised by, publisher, printer, …

Also, I am missing "data" like number of pages, physical size, type of cover and binding, … all of which I consider important library information.

And when it comes to referencing Bibles in non-English languages there is also the aspect of scripts (character sets, fonts etc), e.g.
- Language: Jiddish, written in Hebrew characters
- Language: German, printed in Fractura/Gothic typeset

Suggested conclusion: allow and encourage as much information as possible or available, and provide for a powerful search engine.

Michael K.

Re: Site Organization question

Mike_y 10 Feb 2009 07:46

Ok, I'm lost where to put this: Paul Younan completed an interlinear of the Peshitta Syriac Gospels. As far as I know this was not published outside academia, and is only available online.

Is it original languages (there is a camp that declares the Greek to be a translation from the Aramaic.)
Is is a Parallel (since that is the closest match)
Is it an Interlinear (you have Green's Interlinear on the main english page)
Do we need a separate Interlinear list? (Parallels compare whole verses, Interlinears compare the individual words. This is a world of difference… especially when you are dealing with a language you don't have fluency in.)
Is it an Internet-only?
OR is it a foriegn Language?

I've listed it under the parallel's, but feel free to put it right.

Well, I just googled, and I see some evidence of people owning a hard copy, but not a listing for the book itself. Apparently the book coincides or was first. Still have the "where to put this listing" issue.