User talk:CMBJ

Hello CMBJ, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

You'll find an (incomplete) index of our works listed at Works, although for very broad categories like poetry you may wish to look at the categories like Category:Poems instead.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page! John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha
If you click on Volume I, you'll see that this edition was printed by Ballantyne and Co. in 1911, so I don't believe it's the edition to which the article you linked is referring. --Jfhutson (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why have you moved the Authorised Version?
Hi, I don't understand why you have moved Bible (Authorized Version) to an unwieldy title that I am not going to remember when I need to link to it. The anodyne comment about it being for "ease of human navigation" is wrong. Ease of confusion with having two different "Bible (King James…" is correct. Can you please point me to the discussion and consensus that was held before the move, as I can't find it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:King James Version#Requested move. Consensus was that King James Version is the most common English term for the translation as a whole, which I might add is supported by comparing the prevalence of the terms on Google both internationally and in the United Kingdom. If the view is taken that the original 1611 edition should retain a different name from the 1769 and other editions, then Authorised Version would presumably still be preferred over Authorized Version. But I personally think that it is more helpful to readers if the editions are named logically like this:


 * The Holy Bible (King James Version, 1611)
 * The Holy Bible (King James Version, 1769)
 * The Holy Bible (King James Version, 1911)


 * ...both because it allows quick comparison for those unfamiliar with the history surrounding the various editions and because the term Authorised Version is apparently not as widely known outside of the UK (in my case, I didn't even know what it meant prior to this encounter). —  C M B J   07:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The above statements are curious as well as interesting. I grew up in the Episcopal Church in Virginia (USA) (made it to altar boy too :) and my ancestors were Virginian ministers having initially immigrated from England, using what we called the "King James Bible" and fully knowing that it was "the Authorised Version". On reall, it had "Authorised Version" just inside the leather cover. Prior to those days -- no other religion but the King James "Authorized version" was allowed to take root in Virginia. One of my ancestors had to go to England to get his ministry validated in England so he could be a minister in Virginia. No other religions were allowed to be preached in Virginia (USA) in that time period. Here I specifically refer to the Rev. James Maury, also teacher of a boy's classics school. One of his students was a boy named Thomas Jefferson. He is listed on Wikipedia and I think it is there that the roadside Memorial makes these statements. —Maury (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That discussion took place on Wikipedia. This is Wikisource, which is a sister but distinct, and a discussion will need to take place here before moving from an established name and format. Our standard for naming versions of the Bible is the form "Bible (xxx)". Adding "The Holy" to the front is not helpful to navigation and linking. wrt to "z" vs "s", according to OED they are both legitimate spellings in British English with a preference for "z". So reverting to the "z" spelling will be just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Gentle with the WP links
This isn't wikipedia, so there is no need to go wild with the (off-wiki) linking. We would only tend to link lead or priority components. For instance, as there is a wp link for an author, if they are looking to know more about the author, they can follow the link. Conversely, we encourage local link to relevant components like other works, other works, and portal as they lend to the understanding of works and authors. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The entry was modeled after an existing one which had two Wikipedia links, so I assumed that they were preferred for occupations and localities. —  C M B J   02:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)