Talk:Biblical software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PROD removed[edit]

I removed PROD because this is a genuine genre of software which deserves an article. I agree that there are problems with non-notable software being listed. The question is how to make the article better. As I see it there are three approaches:

  1. One article both explaining the subject and listing notable software only. Would need a strict "no red links" rule.
  2. One article explaining the subject and one listing notable software only. Would need a strict "no red links" rule.
  3. One article explaining the subject and a category for notable packages.

I favour the third option. Categories do not need as much maintenance as lists and there will be no need to weed our red links.--DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99% of this article was just speedied as re-creation of deleted material. I'm going to take the rest of it to AfD. I haven't seen any evidence from independent, reliable sources to verify the notability claim. If it can be verified then it shoudl stay. If not, a category without the attendant article. Who defines notable software. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory of software. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that it had been deleted before. In my view notability of software in this genre should be no different from any other software genre. If it is notable enough for an article it can be listed/categorised, otherwise not. The text needs cleanup (perhaps even a rewrite) and references but I don't see a problem with the subject in principle. Software of this type does exist and it does have the facilities described. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just asked the deleting admin to weigh in on whether any of the software isn't re-created content. No one is questioning that the type of software exists, but rather whether it's notable. There are lots of software genres, most are not notable. Reliable sources need to be found to cover notability. Take the existing software articles, E-sword for one, it's a how to sourced from its own website. Not going to fly and once I get the confirmation that it isn't a re-creation, I'm going to take it to AfD. THese articles have flown under the radar but the recent creation of a ton of non-notable stubs ( the red links in the article that were bundled in the same AfD) led to attention. Why do you think Category:Bible Software wouldn't do the job for any that are deemed notable? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of RS mentions here about the advent of the bible on the internet. In the mean time I'm bundling an AfD discussion via SwordSearcher. This article is not included TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercially Available ???[edit]

How is this article differentiating between "commercially available" and "free"?

It obviously isn't on the basis of the engine, because the Logos Bible Software engine is gratis. It is equally obvious that it isn't on the basis of resources, because e-Sword, The Sword Project, and the WORD have non-gratis resources. Nor is it on the basis of "free" qua "libre" because both Logos Bible Software and e-Sword are not-libre. Nor is it on the basis of one being able to buy it from a retailer, because various front ends of _The Sword Project_ can be purchased from various retailers.jonathon (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as in the last eight months nobody has written anything about how "commercially available" and "free" are being differentiated in this article, I merged the "free" and "commercial" lists together. jonathon (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Being Listed[edit]

I propose that to be listed in this article, a program must meet one of the following criteria:

  • Have its own article;
  • Be a rebranded edition of a program that has its own article;
  • Official platform variants of a program that has its own article;

To that end, I deleted all listings that did not meet at least one of those points. p (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to have its own Wikipedia article to be included on a list of or article about Bible software. However, If this article were getting way too long (it's certainly not now), I'd suggest having a separate list with all known Bible software on it, and moving "minor" software to that. But if you deleted named, separate software from the article (I didn't check), will you please add it back in? or put it on such a list? Thanks. Misty MH (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how one counts, a list of "All known Bible software" would contain at least 100,000 items. More, if one counted things like QuickVerse 2012, QuickVerse 2011, QuickVerse 2010, and QuickVerse 7 as four different programs, or QuickVerse, QuickVerse for Pocket PC, and QuickVerse for Mac as three different programs. I could as easilly use Laridian, Olive Tree, or The Sword Project as examples. By requiring a Wiki article, the list is kept to a reasonable length, and the most significant software is, in theory, listed. Bible Navigator for xBox 360 should be mentioned on this page, but since neither it, nor the family it was developed from has an article on wikipedia, it isn't. As best as I can determine, the only mention of that program is on the page about the HCSB.Bible Software (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

e-Sword and other unlinked items[edit]

Is e-Sword notable? It doesn't have an article and I am very suspicious of list entries without articles on any article. Sure, references may provide a little verifiability, but the ones provided for e-Sword do not prove notability. The review is the best of them and even that is just somebody's personal blog. The other two are two do not help with notability at all. My concern is that if we have entries on the lists without articles (even for things that are notable) then that invites people to add others which are not notable. So, I am inclined to remove e-Sword again but, rather than get in an argument or an edit-war, here is what I suggest: If e-Sword is notable then somebody should make an article for it. A couple of sentences and one or two good RS references would be good enough to get started. What do we think? Can it have a valid article or should it be removed again? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first off thanks for entering a debate on this. To start I would say this article is clearly aiming to talk about the title subject, Biblical software - which is notable. Next, although it contains lists it isn't a 'list article' and as such I would think slightly different 'rules' should apply. It becomes more a survey of the software landscape of such offerings. Then the issue of what denotes notable is rather difficult. Personally I use both e-sword and Logos. I know more who use e-sword then logos. Not objective I know - but just to let you know. And yes I would have thought e-sword should have and article - but that is true about so many subjects! Thoughts? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I have seen happen on several other lists is that, once you have a few unlinked or redlinked items, you get (both intentional and unintentional) spammers adding other things that definitely should not be there. Bible software might not seem like a subject where spam is very prevalent but it turns up pretty much everywhere to some degree. (In fact, I suspect that dealing with spam was how this page got on my watchlist in the first place. I don't remember.) This is why I instinctively react when I see unlinked items on a list like this. I don't have an opinion about e-Sword itself. If you think it is eligible for an article then making even a very short stub article would be a good idea as it would solve the issue here and also just because making new articles on valid topics is a good thing for Wikipedia in general. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TEMPLE OS[edit]

ADD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Jewish-English and Greek-Eglish interlinear translations[edit]

Biblehub has a free-of-charge service like this. The socalled Strong's version shows all the possible meaning for each words. Clicking on the Jewish or Greek words, the site displays its occurrences in the whole Holy Scripture. The same is for the Greek books made available on the web (e.g. [1]).

The unsolved and relevant issue is that occurences don't take into account declinated nouns and conjugated verbs. So far, for each time/ mode /person/gender/sgular or plural number of the conjugated verbs, as well as for each case/gender/number of the declinated verbs, we have as many different tabs to be displayed. If this feature can be WP:relevant to be cited in the article, then it has also to be mentioned this unsolved issue. Maybe someone will be capable to freely fix it later.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biblical_software&oldid=1206489762"