Wikisource talk:WikiProject Wiki Bible

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Old Testament Text[edit]

Is it the policy that the Old Testament must be translated solely from the Masoretic Text? Most modern translations sometimes follow the Septuagint or other early translations, and even the Dead Sea Scrolls.--Poetlister 11:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, we haven't made any official policy's about the source text yet. You just have to put your sources in the discussion page. Maybe we should have a policy of that nature though? I think the Masoretic Text is the most reliable, and we can put other readings from the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls in the footnotes.--Jdavid2008 04:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Jdavid's comment seems all right to me. Even if we don't wind up deciding on the Masoretic Text, it would seem like a good idea to at the very least footnote any departures from it. Now, the Masoretic Text, though generally uniform, does contain some variants depending on whose Masoretic Text you're using...Fontwords 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree on going with the Masoretic text. There are certainly parts that can be improved by comparing them with other texts like the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Dead Sea Scrolls; some passages don't make much sense if you don't. But by and large it's remarkably well preserved as far as scholars can tell. Pleonic 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't clam to be an expert but I understand that most Masoretic variants are matters of spelling and vowels; very few affect the meaning.--Poetlister 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All manuscripts have significant variants, including the Masoretic texts. While they have tradition on their side, we'd have to know what the original text looked like in order to say one is more "reliable" than another. Since we don't, we're really only saying the Masoretic texts are more consistent with themselves. The different texts are grouped into text types, with different variant readings common to different types. This shows some manuscripts are based on specific others, but it doesn't tell us which are original. It's like we're looking at the branches at the top of a tree and trying to guess which one derives most directly from the trunk. We can't see which one is the closest, but we can make educated guesses on some divergences and some relationships. Each variant should be weighed depending on its own merit, and not on how well it meshes with the Masoretic text. I don't think it should be at all problematic to introduce a variant into the actual translation if the translator feels and can show the variant should be preferred. maklelan 20:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New Testament Text[edit]

I don't even know if I should open up this topic, but is there any general consensus over New Testament Text? I assume we're all using the Greek, but beyond that is there any agreement over what Greek text or texts to use? I've been using Robinson-Pierpont's Greek New Testament, which is pretty close to the Majority Text. Any thoughts? Fontwords 14:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's pretty good agreement on the critical greek text now. In fact the critical texts published in the United Bible Societies 4th edition and the Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland 27th edition) differ only in punctuation and apparatus. I've been using the UBS 4th edition because it's cheap and readily available.Pleonic 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If we had a general consensus over a New Testament Text I would vote for the UBS4/NA27 text. From what I've heard it's quite good, and the one generally used by translators these days (Besides the World English Bible, which chose the Majority Text, and KJV-Only folks, who use the Textux Receptus). Of course even if we set a standard people could translate from what they've got, and then other people can make the small updates necessary. Edit:For New Testament translations I think the NA27/USB4 has been used for all of them (except 2 John, which was a update, not a translation, and Matthew-(Matthew may be NA27/USB4, but the translator didn't mention sources))--Jdavid2008 14:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way I can get a computerised version of that UBS4/NA27 text? I've been able to find the Textus Receptus, Von Soden's Byzantine Text, Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine Text, Westcott-Hort's Text, the Majority Text, and an unidentified Alexandrian-type Text online, as they have passed into the public domain. Also, there's a good number of translations which don't use the UBS4/NA27 text: e.g. the NET, the NKJV, the NIV, etc. Some have used other standards, and many have used the eclectic approach--dealing with textual variants on a case-by-case basis. This is only a personal opinion, but I tend to distrust the United Bible Societies' texts because of their emphasis on the priority of a few ancient Egyptian texts, even when they are contradicted by the vast majority of others (e.g. Mark 9:29).Fontwords 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this should not be a divisive issue :) If we can't agree we don't need to make a policy...
Crosswire's Sword Project, and all the softwares that go with it have a Wescott-Hort text with NA27/UBS4 variants, you can access that online at Otherwise there are several websites with a earlier edition (NA26/UBS3) which I think is virtually the same. ( If we do decide on this text we should definitely footnote where the Majority Text differs. You have a good point about them relying heavily on a few ancient texts, the problem is the other ones are all later, and could potentially all have been copied from each other, or from one source that had mistakes. NKJV uses Textus Receptus, for King James Only-ist reasons, NIV and NET both use an eclectic approach (my bad, I didn't realize there was a difference between them :)--Jdavid2008 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Very true, plus Egypt's climate being what it is, the papyri discoveries just tend to come from there. You don't find the really early papyri in Asia Minor or even Palestine, unfortunately. If you're doing textual criticism, whether of the Bible or Homer or Beowulf, the earliest texts will tend to get more weight. But with the big manuscripts, which come later, not all come from Egypt (e.g., B, C, D, etc).
Personally, I wish I had the technical expertise (and time) to translate eclectically -- applying the canons of textual criticism line by line. Since I don't, translating from the UBS4 or NA27 is the next best thing. And really, what the NIV and NET came up using an eclectic approach is extremely close to the standard text anyway.
The UBS4 and NA27 are both copyrighted, so the Bible Society or University of Münster has to put something online. And actually, the University of Münster now has a free online version of the NA27 up, rudimentary critical apparatus and all. It's a prototype but seems to work pretty well to me. But I think Crosswire's Wescott-Hort with the variants is a great idea to get around all that. Pleonic 06:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think to settle the issue we should just name the text that we use under the discussion tab, and where applicable, mention variations in the footnotes of the text. I myself am a fan of the Robertson's and Pierpoint Byzantine Textform, but we need to remember that there are very little variations between the NA27, UBS4, and the Byzantine Textform, and most are not significant. The places where these are significant should be listed and have the possible variations shown. Gospeltothepoor 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we have been doing that up till now, it seems to have worked rather well, and it seems like a good idea to just continue.--Jdavid2008 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the source text we are working on?--Fiat Lux 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


LORD vs. Yahweh, Christ vs. Anointed, Master vs. Lord, and so on :) Discussion here

A decision will need to be made about the tetragrammaton. Hebrew had the consonants YHWH (variants: YHVH, JHWH) but then all the words originally only had consonants. Other options are Yahweh or LORD (all caps or small caps to distinguish from lord). The Septuagint used the word "lord" and New Testament quotes continue this using the word "lord." So I think either option is reasonable. Jehovah is not really viable. Most modern (but not all) English translations use "LORD." But a decision is required. Perhaps people could put their votes here (plus or minus reasons) or the directors could make an executive decision. The decision could then go in the policy page. 12 July 2008.

I've long used the actual Hebrew יהוה in the text of my translations. I think it gives the reader the opportunity to interpret it however they wish, and it doesn't prioritize any one method over another. (December 14, 2008)

First of all, I do not think it is good to use the Hebrew letters in the translating because English people can't read it. If you want to do it the Hebrew way, then use Yahweh and Eloheem. Next, we should make note of whether we use The LORD for Yahweh and God for Eloheem, or just Yahweh and Eloheem, in the Preface (page does not exist yet). I will put a proposal link on the project page. Whatever way we decide upon should be made a reviewer guideline (in order to not bother the translators about which way to do it). Translators should not wait until we reach a consensus. Arlen22 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please say what you think below Arlen22 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The LORD, God, Jesus, Christ I think we should stick to the regular wording. Arlen22 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the Bible is inspired of God, then you have to see God's point of view on the matter. Yahweh inspired the Bible writers to use His Name in the Old Testament even telling Moses that this was the Name that he was to be known as for all eternity. (Exodus 3:15) He inspired His Name to be in the Old Testament nearly 7,000 times, more then any other Name in the Bible. In fact Joel said that anyone who calls on God's Name will be saved. (Joel 2:32) If we take out Yahweh's Name then we are doing a great injustice to Him who WANTED His Name in there! It is not a matter of uniformity with other English translations but doing what Yahweh wanted. We shouldn't let a misguided Jewish superstition dictate our actions thus doing Yahweh a great injustice.LittleStar (talk)

This is a secular project, not a sectarian christian one. Bob A (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. It is just a matter of translating or putting the english spelling of the hebrew or greek word in. Arlen22 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

@LittleStar, I think I understand now what you mean. I know this is four years old, but I thought I should tie up the loose ends, even if they're old. I still don't think we should use Hebrew letters, as someone mentioned, but the closest English works just as good in my opinion. Even that is not a big deal to me anymore. Jesus bless you, and have a good day. Arlen22 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Words Added For Clarity[edit]

I was wondering what should be done concerning words that are not in the original text but added for clarity, if anything should be done at all. One thing that has been done in the past is too put the text in italics. One problem for this is that italics are used to emphasize words, but this method is the most widely known and is used by the KJV and I've heard the NASB. Another method as used by the NET Bible is by having the words normal in the actual text but in the footnotes be mentioned as not in the actual Greek Manuscripts. This contains a problem since the footnotes would become just to large for all practical reasons. Any suggestions? Gospeltothepoor 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been putting added words in brackets, [like so].Fontwords 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You could make them small: <small>small</small>.--Poetlister 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the <small> tags is that they are presentational, rather than semantic. This limits the use of our text in different contexts - being usefully interpreted by a screen-reader, for instance. --Dave314159 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we transliterators or translators. If the first then by all means translate it word for word. If the last the stay close but do add stuff like "a" and "the". But do be careful about using the if not used in the orginal.Arlen22 (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Capitalization of the divine pronoun[edit]

I was taking a look at Genesis 1, and saw that "he" and related words were not capitalized when the antecedent is is God.
I am tempted to "be bold" as they are fond of saying over at Wikipedia, but I think it better that a consensus be reached first.
In my experience, it is the general English language convention to use an initial capital letter for all pronouns whose antecedent is God (footnoting any ambiguous cases.) I see little reason to break with this without good reason. That said, we should be consistent across the entire translated text, applying whatever convention is decided upon.

- Dave314159 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but on one point. Some times the issue of capitalizing is not clear cut, especially concerning the word Spirit. Discussion should be brought up on these issues. Also the prophecies found in Psalms should bring consideration since context tells us that it is talking about King David but it has a prophetic significance found in Jesus Christ; whether these should be capitalized should also be brought into consideration. Gospeltothepoor 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Prophetic significance is something I'd put in a footnote. Our translations should reflect the surface meaning of the text. Therefore, in the instance you're talking about, I'd say no to capitalizing the pronouns.
-Dave314159 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-I'm with Dave. Especially in England, there is more and more tendency among writers to avoid capitalising pronouns like "he" or "whom" because it looks awkward and requires interpretation of the text. As to "spirit" I recommend we generally not capitalise it unless it is found in an obviously divine title such as "Holy Spirit." But over and over in Scripture there are ambigous passages, sometimes intentionally so. Fontwords 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Authorised Version does not capitalise Divine pronouns, and nor do the NRSV, the Catholic NAB or the GNB. I think it's rather an affectation.--Poetlister 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if I am rather late to say so, I think we should continue doing it as a sign of respect at least for Yahweh, Eloheem and Jesus Christ. Arlen22 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Text Suggestion[edit]

Here's something I'd like to do, but I thought I'd check for objections first. There are primarily three schools of textual criticism: Those who follow the Textus Receptus, those who follow the Nestle-Aland type text, and those who follow a Byzantine or Majority text. Although I am with the latter group in personal opinion, I'd like to add notes to the text whenever there is significant variation from any of the three textual approaches. For example, if the translator chose a Textus Receptus reading different from Nestle-Aland or Byzantine readings, someone could add a neutral footnote such as "zzz is found in Scrivener's Textus Receptus. Nestle-Aland's 27 Editions reads xxx, Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine text reads yyy." Any thoughts Fontwords 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds excellent to me.
If at all possible, said notes ought to link to an appropriate Wikipedia article (or articles) describing that source and perhaps the concept of textual criticism in general. If we were to implement this, I would be in favor of creating a purpose-built template to make such footnotes uniform across the project.
--Dave314159 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing concerning this approach is variations within the textform. For example, in the Byzantine Textfrom (which I use) their are two almost equally as strong families of textual variations (the AV and the Q I believe) in the book of Revelation. While in the book of Revelation you could footnote the variations as Byz:AV or Byz:Q, you would need an explanation for this and in other books in which their is no real major distinction of variation families (might be wrong termonology) I suggest just using Byz:1 to indicate stronger support and Byz:2 for the next, etc. Any suggestions? Gospeltothepoor 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Because of the vastness of this project and the shortage of workers, it might be best if we start out simplistically, using just a few source texts and maybe going on to more thorough analysis only in certain places. Would it be all right if we used as our standards the following three texts: (1) Nestle-Alands 27th edition Greek, (2) Scrivener's Textus Receptus, and (3) Whatever the preferred reading is according to Robinson and Pierpont's Byzantine Textform? If certain passages required more detailed analysis, that could be supplied on a case-by-case basis... Fontwords 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello friends[edit]

Hi, just discovered this project, fascinating. Thanks to whoever started it.

I'm just dropping a line here to introduce myself, and also to raise an issue that I think will ultimately need a policy.

Good policy prevents conflict that would otherwise arise regularly.

Since we can document discussion, and revise things to accomodate new information, people should never need to feel excluded from the process.

I agree with above comments that text-critical decisions are ad hoc by nature and policy is unnecessary, but documentation is. However, other issues are more systematic, like YHWH/Yahweh/LORD/Lord/Jehovah(/haShem?) above.

Sorry to raise the thorny topic of translating gender marking in biblical texts, but it's going to cause edit wars eventually, unless we preclude that by nutting out the issues at a policy level.

For example, I noticed something in Matthew 4 (I think), where hos with John the Baptist as antecedent was translated as who, rather than he who. It seems a trifle zealous to be inclusive of the possibility of women being John the Baptist. I'm fairly sure I could change this without provoking an edit war, but other cases could bring all sorts of grief.

For the sake of avoiding that grief, I wonder if people would be willing to share their concerns and proposals in a discussion aimed at building consensus for draft guidelines on this issue.

The only quasi-offical guide with any breadth of acceptance I know is the Colorado Springs guidelines (CSG). I don't imagine we'd gain consensus for those here (and I think we can do better). However, they may serve as a useful point of departure.

Reviewing them, it would appear the later CSGs are less controversial than the earlier ones. I'd propose discussion starts at the end of the CSGs and works backwards. In the course of discussion we will probably discover other issues that would be helpful to articulate clearly to the point of consensus.

Whereas other translation issues regarding lexical selection, sense of tense, logic, resolution of ambiguity or best text can appeal to published discussion and existing translations, gender issues in particular passages will nearly all have sources for and against. There is simply no way to resolve an edit war other than I was here first or you're sexist etc. Very unhelpful I would imagine.

If you want to help out with this please join the discussion here.

Peace. Alastair Haines 11:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki project mentioned in the blog world[edit]

The same post by Brad A. Greenberg has appeared here and here. Interesting comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very good publicity. Thanks for the heads up Jayvdb, it seems like a lot of work needs to be taken watching this--sorry I haven't been around, I have been really busy. However I don't think I agree with all their criticism. All wiki projects have the possibility of vandalism--but usually it gets ironed out pretty quickly.--Jdavid2008 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as bad publicity! :-) A few new contributors have joined the ranks in the last few days, and I can only attribute that to this blog post. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually enrolled in this project because I saw the message in the b-greek list.--Fiat Lux 14:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek has done an article about this project, which is being discussed on the Wikisource mailing list. --John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

page name change[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Bible_(Free)#(Wikisource) to rename these pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, following lack of response. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Genesis butchered[edit]

Is anybody watching the project pages? Does the complete re-write of Bible (Wikisource)/Genesis, Chaps 1 - 6 meet with general approval? Who/what are Aleim, Raqiyah, etc.? (Sorry, I don't want to get involved - I just dropped by after fixing these edits on Wikipedia:en: by JoshuaSlanders.) RHaworth (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing these changes since Feb 11.undo action/diff back to prior revision.
It appears that this rewrite, and the changes to Bible (World English)/Genesis, were done with the best of intentions and the users efforts can be better seen at The Sources for Genesis. These new texts are on the borderline of being out of scope, so I have taken them to "Proposed Deletion" to be discussed.[1]
John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia AFD: The Free Bible[edit]

I have nominated w:The Free Bible for deletion on Wikipedia. The article is about Bible (Wikisource), the free Bible translation here on Wikisource, so regulars here are most likely to be able to opine informatively and/or want to rescue the article if it can be saved. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And it appears to have been deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Member User boxes[edit]

Could someone upload this file?
I am trying to make a userbox for Members and translators. "" I would but I just got on yesterday. I have been on Wikipedia for a long time. Arlen22 (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

I have uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons Arlen22 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apocryphal books[edit]

This is a sentance I would like to add to the description of the Apocrypha. Sentence in Question:"Many bible scholars consider the Apocrypha as inferior both in quality and content." Has anyone heard of this. I have also made a note of this on Talk:Bible_(Wikisource)#Apocryphal_booksPlease go there if you have heard of it and follow the directions to vote. If the number reaches 10 I will add the sentence in question to the end of the description about the Apocrypha. Arlen22 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
If you have any objections please state them. I will add the sentance in question on or after June 20 if no one objects. I will put it on before that if there are 10 votes. Arlen22 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Added I added it. Arlen22 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbered Participant list[edit]

Does anyone have a problem with having the participant list numbered? It would just simply be a matter of changing the * to a #. Arlen22 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation philosophy[edit]

"The text should be as literal as possible while still translating the correct meaning into good English" -- an excellent guideline. Only that the "correct meaning" of an Iron Age Hebrew text is often difficult to establish, and that being literal is more often than not in direct conflict with writing good English. In other words this is asking the impossible. Any translation project needs to make a core decision if it wants to sacrifice literality over style and/or a perceived "correct" meaning, or vice versa. Without making such a decision, which admits that one aspect must be sacrificed no matter what, you cannot hope to end up with a translation that is in any way self-consistent.

The point of "Keep the translation simple, non-technical, robust, and easy-to-understand" can be interpreted as such a choice, but then you should stop requiring "literal" translations. By choosing to be "easy to understand" (in a translation of texts that aren't by any stretch easy to understand in the original), you explicitly forgo any claim of staying close to the source text. This is respectable, but it will require you to place your translation in one of many possible theological schools. Only a "hard-to-understand" literal translation which sticks to the literal source text no matter how confused or ambiguous it is can claim to "avoid sectarian disputes".

I note that Genesis renders the tetragrammaton as "Yahweh". This makes the "Wiki Bible" part of the w:Sacred Name Movement, a tiny and eccentric faction within modern Christianity. This makes the translation not only unacceptable to Jews, it also immediately puts it into a fringe corner of Christianity. I am sorry, but I have serious problems envisaging any possible use for a translation based on such a footing. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah--- I did the genesis translation and I can tell you that the choice of "Yahweh" for "YHWH" has nothing to do with any sacred name movement--- it's just the only choice that doesn't ruin the flow of the text when you read it. Jews do not have any problem with the tetragrammaton printed in Hebrew within the sacred text, so presumably there is no problem in English. Whether or not they care is immaterial--- the translation is secular-- and the original said "YHWH", so the translation should say "YHWH".
When translating, I tried to keep the exact meanings in the original text, there aren't that many (except occasionally, footnoted). Genesis is not particularly ambiguous, especially as compared to the later prophets, like Habakkuk (which was a real bitch to translate), and the meaning is actually pretty straightforward to a Hebrew speaker. However, if you do not speak Hebrew natively, it can seem more ambiguous than it is, this is true for any language that you study without having native feel.
The issue of usefulness: a good translation, as literal as possible while preserving poetic qualities, will be useful in many ways. Here are why I care:
  1. I am interested in the sentence structure of ancient text, the levels of linguistic recursion. The evolution of the Hebrew text can be studied in a translation that takes care not to change the level of linguistic nesting (as I have done).
  2. I am also interested in the date of the different components of the text, which can be understood by the presence of little Aramaic "tics" in the text. Mostly it's good Hebrew, but there is more and more Aramaic tics as you get later. I have preserved all the Aramaic tics as I indicateth their location in faux olde English, as I hath done heare, taking care to preserve the number of tics--- one Aramaic tic == one olde english tic.
  3. I am also interested in the textual boundaries between the text, which show up as minor inconsistencies in names and events between Yahwist and Elohist sections. For example, Moses's father in law shows up under one name in one chapter, and gets a completely different name in the next chapter, showing a textual boundary.
  4. The translation should preserve hard to define feelings and rhythms. I struggled very hard to do this in Psalms. There are certain sections which seem to have been written by the same author, like lamentations and psalm 137, based on the use of certain rhythms and imagery. I want to make sure that the translation is sufficiently accurate that the feeling of different authors come through.
I can assure you that I have absolutely no sectarian bias, and I am not contaminated by King James or any other Bible version, since I have only read the text in Hebrew. 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the use of Yahweh, "The LORD", which is used in the King James Version and other english translations also keeps the flow. In my opinion "Yahweh God" flows the same as "The LORD God". I think we should use that in this translation as well, since it is the most recognized. Arlen22 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Previous" and "Next" books in the Tanakh[edit]

I see that, for example, the header on Job says that the previous book is Esther, and the next is Psalms. While this may be the Christian order, the Jewish order is different - with the previous being Proverbs (משלי), and the next being Song of Songs (שיר השירים). I think that the Jewish order should also be shown in the headers here - see Tanakh for the order. Od Mishehu (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible goals for 2013[edit]

This is probably more than a bit presumptuous on my part, but I have started a discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Goals for 2013? in the English wikipedia asking what if any sort of goals we might be able to reasonably set for the next year, in wikipedia and other WF sites as well. I figured the wikipedia probably gets more attention, which is why I started the discussion there. But I would be very interested in seeing any input regarding what the editors here think might be the areas here most in need or meriting additional attention. Maybe, and at this point it is just a maybe, maybe we might be able to get some input on such topics if we have some idea what it is we really need to work on. Anyway, I would welcome any input anyone here might have. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Hello - I just discovered your site. I will check out the wikipedia site too. I am not a translator but have started a translation effort under a wiki concept too. I would like to get some time with you to discuss the successes and challenges and needed collaboration. I can be reached at Thanks and I am excited to watch your project succeed!